The idea of the criminal jury as a purely fact-finding body is an ahistorical myth invented by docket-clearing judges and conviction-seeking prosecutors who recognize that it is far easier to make the factual case for guilt than the moral case for draconian punishment.
The primary role of criminal juries through most of Anglo-American history was to prevent govt from abusing the criminal justice system and turning it into an instrument of control. Which is why juries have been largely neutered in modern times—to facilitate mass incarceration.
Mass incarceration would be impossible without coercive plea bargaining—not because it would be impossible to pay for all the trials, as apologists for the current system falsely contend—but rather because we would not choose to waste money (and time) on all those trials.
If more people required to take days off work and away from families to serve on juries, they’d start insisting that prosecutors focus on high-quality/high-stakes cases and dismiss the time-wasters. And guess what? That’s EXACTLY how the system was meant to work.
By practically eliminating criminal juries through coercive plea bargaining, prosecutors break that feedback loop and ensure they can pursue lower-value cases that citizens would not choose to pay full-freight for if it meant serving on a jury. Like this: google.com/amp/s/www.nola…
