What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas

Šta se desilo sa porotnim suđenjem? - Sudža A. Tomas (Suja A. Thomas)

Prevodilac: Ivana Krivokuća Lektor: Tijana Mihajlović

Dating back at least to the time of Socrates,

Unazad barem od Sokratovog vremena,

some early societies decided that certain disputes,

neka od prvih društava su odlučila da izvesne sporove,

such as whether a person committed a particular crime,

poput toga da li je neka osoba počinila određeni zločin,

should be heard by a group of citizens.

treba da sasluša grupa građana.

Several centuries later, trial by jury was introduced to England,

Nekoliko vekova kasnije, porotno suđenje je uvedeno u Engleskoj,

where it became a fundamental feature of the legal system,

gde je postalo osnovna odlika pravnog sistema,

checking the government and involving citizens in decision-making.

pri čemu je vršilo kontrolu vlasti i uključivalo građane u donošenje odluka.

Juries decided whether defendants would be tried on crimes,

Porote su odlučivale da li će se optuženom suditi zbog krivičnog dela,

determined whether the accused defendants were guilty,

utvrđivale da li je optuženi kriv

and resolved monetary disputes.

i razrešavale novčane sporove.

While the American colonies eventually cast off England's rule,

Iako su američke kolonije na kraju odbacile vladavinu Engleske,

njena pravna tradicija porote je opstala.

its legal tradition of the jury persisted.

The United States Constitution instructed a grand jury

Ustav Sjedinjenih Država nalagao je veliku porotu

to decide whether criminal cases proceeded,

za odlučivanje o tome da li se krivični predmet pokreće,

required a jury to try all crimes, except impeachment,

zahtevao je da porota sudi za sve zločine, osim u slučaju opoziva sa vlasti,

and provided for juries in civil cases as well.

a takođe je obezbeđivao učešće porote u građanskim predmetima.

Yet, in the US today, grand juries often are not convened,

Ipak, danas se u SAD-u često ne saziva velika porota

i porote odlučuju u manje od 4% krivičnih predmeta

and juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases

and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court.

i manje od 1% građanskih predmeta koji su podneti sudu.

That's at the same time as jury systems in other countries are growing.

To se dešava u isto vreme

dok se sistemi porote u drugim zemljama razvijaju.

So what happened in the U.S.?

Pa, šta se dogodilo u SAD-u?

Part of the story lies in how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution.

Deo priče je u načinu na koji Vrhovni sud tumači Ustav.

It's permitted plea bargaining,

Dozvolio je sporazum o priznanju krivice,

which now occurs in almost every criminal case.

koji se sada javlja u skoro svakom krivičnom predmetu.

The way it works is the prosecutor presents the accused

To funkcioniše tako što tužilac iznese mogućnost optuženom

with a decision of whether to plead guilty.

da donese odluku o priznanju krivice.

If they accept the plea, the case won't go in front of a jury,

Ako prihvati krivicu, predmet neće ići pred porotu,

but they'll receive a shorter prison sentence

ali će osoba dobiti kraću zatvorsku kaznu

than they'd get if a jury did convict them.

nego što bi dobila da ju je osudila porota.

The risk of a much greater prison sentence after a trial

Rizik od mnogo veće zatvorske kazne nakon završenog suđenja

can frighten even an innocent defendant into taking a plea.

može da zastraši čak i nevinog optuženika tako da prihvati krivicu.

Between the 19th century and the 21st century,

Između 19. i 21. veka,

the proportion of guilty pleas has increased from around 20% to 90%,

udeo priznanja krivice je porastao sa oko 20% do 90%,

and the numbers continue to grow.

a taj broj i dalje raste.

The Supreme Court has permitted the use of another procedure

Vrhovni sud je dozvolio korišćenje jednog drugog postupka

that interferes with the jury

koji stavlja prepreku pred porotu,

called summary judgement.

zvanog skraćeno suđenje.

Koristeći skraćeno suđenje,

Using summary judgement, judges can decide that civil trials are unnecessary

sudije mogu odlučiti da su građanske parnice nepotrebne

if the people who sue have insufficient evidence.

ako ljudi koji tuže nemaju dovoljno dokaza.

This is intended only for cases where no reasonable jury would disagree.

Ovo je namenjeno samo za predmete

u kojima bi se složila svaka razumna porota.

To je teško utvrditi,

That's a difficult thing to determine,

ali je ipak korišćenje skraćenog suđenja rastegnuto do te mere

yet usage of summary judgement has stretched to the point

where some would argue it's being abused.

da bi neki tvrdili da se zloupotrebljava.

Na primer, sudije odobravaju, u potpunosti ili delimično,

For instance, judges grant fully, or in part,

over 70% of employers' requests

preko 70% zahteva poslodavaca

to dismiss employment discrimination cases.

o odbijanju predmeta diskriminacije u zapošljavanju.

In other cases, both the person who sues and the person who defends

U drugim slučajevima, osoba koja tuži i osoba koja brani

forgo their right to go to court,

odriču se svog prava da izađu pred sud

instead resolving their dispute through a professional arbitrator.

i umesto toga rešavaju spor preko profesionalnog arbitra.

These are generally lawyers, professors, or former judges.

To su uglavnom pravnici, profesori ili bivše sudije.

Arbitration can be a smart decision by both parties

Arbitraža može biti pametna odluka za obe strane

to avoid the requirements of a trial in court,

da bi se izbegli zahtevi suđenja u sudu,

but it's often agreed to unwittingly when people sign contracts

ali se na nju često pristaje ne znajući kada ljudi potpisuju ugovore

kao što su prijave za zaposlenje i ugovori o pružanju usluga.

like employment applications and consumer agreements.

To može postati problem.

That can become a problem.

For example, some arbitrators may be biased

Na primer, neki arbitri mogu biti pristrasni

prema kompanijama koje im daju slučajeve.

towards the companies that give them cases.

These are just some of the ways in which juries have disappeared.

Ovo su samo neki od načina na koji je porota nestala.

But could the disappearance of juries be a good thing?

Međutim, može li nestanak porote biti dobra stvar?

Well, juries aren't perfect.

Pa, porote nisu savršene.

They're costly,

Skupe su,

time-consuming,

oduzimaju vreme

and may make errors.

i mogu praviti greške.

And they're not always necessary,

Nisu ni uvek neophodne,

kao kada se ljudi mogu jednostavno složiti da razreše svoje sporove.

like when people can simply agree to settle their disputes.

But juries have their advantages.

Ipak, porota ima svoje prednosti.

When properly selected,

Kada se adekvatno odaberu,

jurors are more representative of the general population

porotnici bolje predstavljaju opštu populaciju

and don't have the same incentives as prosecutors,

i nemaju istu motivaciju kao tužioci, zakonodavci i sudije

legislators,

or judges

koji teže da budu ponovo odabrani ili unapređeni.

seeking reelection or promotion.

The founders of the United States trusted in the wisdom

Osnivači Sjedinjenih Država imali su poverenja u mudrost

of impartial groups of citizens

nepristrasnih grupa građana

to check the power of all three branches of government.

pri kontrolisanju moći sve tri grane vlasti.

And the jury trial itself has given ordinary citizens

A sama porotna suđenja su običnim građanima dala

a central role in upholding the social fabric.

središnju ulogu u pružanju potpore društvenoj strukturi.

So will the jury system in the U.S. survive into the future?

Dakle, hoće li sistem porote u SAD-u opstati u budućnosti?