Islam and Juries

[GuestFellow]

In Islam are we allowed to use juries in criminal and civil cases? Does Islam go against or supports the use of juries?

Does Islam state anything about juries?! ;/

[- Qatada -]

Asalam alykum


http://islamtoday.com/discover_islam...&sub_cat_id=49

[Sampharo]

The Jury system is a failed attempt at seeking justice, and its sole purpose or advantage is that it is transparent and makes corrupt rulings by bribed assigned judges not possible (did not prevent more capable organized criminals from devising ways of bribing the Jury themselves).

Justice requires knowledge of law and Shariah and an exemplary character, the jury system "assumes" that the average joe will be an honest man, which is a highly questionable notion let alone puts the fate of a person's claim between the hands of probability of whether or not he gets sympathetic or honest jury or not.

The Islamic judge is there to assess the facts and whether all reasonable evidence has been presented, and passes judgement by applying God's laws. They are perceptive and given all assistance in going out and examining crime scenes and evidence themselves, and can be provided with experts to discuss any meticulous issues. Juries are literally average intelligence and can be completely manipulated by assigned lawyers who ensure freedom of corrupt criminals through eloquent confusing arguments.

Along with technical laws that sets unashamedly proven guilty criminals free under the general policy of "better 10 guilty people walk free than one innocent man wrongly convicted", the whole Jury system is unislamic and unjust. Ask the families of murder and rape victims in the US who have seen drug dealing killers walk free and they will wholeheartedly agree.

[GuestFellow]

^ Not necessarily....

The idea of Juries is for lay participation. It is a chance for ordinary people to get involved in law. This avoids creating a hierarchy system where rich and powerful people are judging poor and weak people.

It is extremely rare or impossible to bribe the juries in the UK. The courts have very strict regulations to avoid such things taking place. We have the electrol register which randomly chooses people all over England to sit as Juries in the court. The Justice system ensures the Juries selected have no connections with the Defendant or the Prosecutors. The Juries selected must have no criminal record so yeah...

As for expertise knowledge, the Judge explains all the rules to the Juries. The Juries listens to the evidence and the Judge in simple language explains all the complicated legal principles.

I prefer 12 people to make a decision. I personally feel the Judge may have too much power and there needs to be a balance when it comes to decision making. Keep in mind a Judge can make mistakes.

I wouldn't call it unislamic at all. If we adopt this system in a Islamic state and twelve ordinary Muslims are told to serve the Jury...I think it would be a good thing.

EDIT: Sorry for the typos.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl:

I prefer 12 people to make a decision. I personally feel the Judge may have too much power and there needs to be a balance when it comes to decision making. Keep in mind a Judge can make mistakes.

why you would need such a thing when the judge rules by the Islamic law, meaning the "standards" for passing ajudgement are already set by the shar'eeah itself :?

i think if what you described was implemented, it would leave the door open for the the Islamic rules and laws to be disregarded. they would be left to the side, which would defeat the whole purpose of implementing the saheerah law to being with. people simply wouldn't take it seriously.

[GuestFellow]

:sl:


why you would need such a thing when the judge rules by the Islamic law, meaning the "standards" for passing ajudgement are already set by the shar'eeah itself :?

Salaam.

Sorry what do you mean?

In a criminal case the Jury has to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty by assessing the evidence presented. They of course would not decide upon the sentence.That is the job of the judge.

The Judge would use the Quran and the Hadith to decide upon the sentence. Whether the defendant is innocent is a matter of the reliability of the evidence...

i think if what you described was implemented, it would leave the door open for the the Islamic rules and laws to be disregarded. they would be left to the side, which would defeat the whole purpose of implementing the saheerah law to being with. people simply wouldn't take it seriously.

What do you mean people would not take it seriously? In an Islamic state, where everyone is raised to be good educated Muslims, then I'm pretty sure we would take Shariah law very seriously. Though I would only use Juries in some cases. Whether there is a matter of public interest.

It has been fourteen hundred years, and many Muslims still take the Shariah law very seriously.

[Sampharo]

I wouldn't call it unislamic at all. If we adopt this system in a Islamic state and twelve ordinary Muslims are told to serve the Jury...I think it would be a good thing.

It is not up to personal opinions whether to call something islamic or not. The judicial system in Islam is dictated, and the Jury system is not it. That is sufficient to make it unislamic and not acceptable in Islam.

As for your own personal opinion that juries are better than judges, I fail to see it. I would always prefer a person of the best of soundness of not only mind and judgement but also perception to see attempts at fake doubt or spot a contradtiction, and has free reign and rights of investigation and questioning. Having laypeople sit there and unable to ask questions or explore their own doubts passing judgement based on the lowest factor denominator of the group, and this whole arrangement of quiet judge (more like referee) while pitching prosecutor and defense attorney opposite each other, games the system and turns actual seeking of justice into a matter of skill of court officers rather than truth.

[GuestFellow]

It is not up to personal opinions whether to call something islamic or not. The judicial system in Islam is dictated, and the Jury system is not it. That is sufficient to make it unislamic and not acceptable in Islam.

As for your own personal opinion that juries are better than judges, I fail to see it. I would always prefer a person of the best of soundness of not only mind and judgement but also perception to see attempts at fake doubt or spot a contradtiction, and has free reign and rights of investigation and questioning. Having laypeople sit there and unable to ask questions or explore their own doubts passing judgement based on the lowest factor denominator of the group, and this whole arrangement of quiet judge (more like referee) while pitching prosecutor and defense attorney opposite each other, games the system and turns actual seeking of justice into a matter of skill of court officers rather than truth.

Asslamu Aliakum.

I know Juries are not used in Islamic courts. However which is why I was asking is there anything in the Quran or the Hadith to suggest that the use of Juries is haram? Yet I have not been given any sources to confirm that the use of Juries are not approved of.

The reason Juries are seen as better than Judges because it eliminates the idea of being biased. It is well known that Judges are pro-police and sometimes do not question the evidence that is presented. Juries have a higher chance of looking at all probabilities and with mixed views about the evidence being presented. Juries could consider outcomes that the judge may not have foreseen. It doesn't take a legally qualified person to assess the evidence. Anyone can do this...

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl:

Salaam.

Sorry what do you mean?

i mean for example in the case of stealing where it has reached that the person is to have their hand cut off. there are conditions (standards i guess is was a bad choice of words) in which dictate this, and i dont see why you need to get others "mediums" involved to reach a verdict.

In a criminal case the Jury has to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty by assessing the evidence presented. They of course would not decide upon the sentence.That is the job of the judge.

well obviously there would have been methods that the Muslims/scholars have used in the past. so i dont see why we need to introduce something new?

What do you mean people would not take it seriously? In an Islamic state, where everyone is raised to be good educated Muslims, then I'm pretty sure we would take Shariah law very seriously.

not if the shareeah law wasn't implemented (if implementing a jury is indeed prohibited). it would seriously be taken as a joke as it would be "put to the side."
i dont see why it is needed to bring new systems in. im sure the scholars of the past would have derived rulings as to how to analyze evidences. after all, some laws involve taking the life of someone...such as the ruling of the murderer. so it wouldn't have been taken lightly.

Asslamu Aliakum.
The reason Juries are seen as better than Judges because it eliminates the idea of being biased.

but cant that apply to the jury as well:?

we have to assume that he would be fearing Allah in regards to that. come to think of it, i wonder if there are conditions in regards for someone to be a judge...

It is well known that Judges are pro-police and sometimes do not question the evidence that is presented. Juries have a higher chance of looking at all probabilities and with mixed views about the evidence being presented. Juries could consider outcomes that the judge may not have foreseen. It doesn't take a legally qualified person to assess the evidence. Anyone can do this...

but how do we know that there views are accurate and aren't influenced by other factors, such as personal..

[GuestFellow]

:sl:

i mean for example in the case of stealing where it has reached that the perosn is to het their hand ct off. there are conditions (standards i guess is was a bad choice or words) in which dictate this, and i dont see why you need to get others "mediums" involved to reach a verdict.

Salaam.

Whether the defendant is guilty or not is a matter of assessing the evidence...sometimes the evidence may not reliable and the Judge could make a mistake. There are cases where judges have made some mistakes.

well obviously there would have been methods that the Muslims/scholars have used in the past. so i dont see why we need to introduce something new?

Well to simply avoid the idea of being biased. The Quran is perfect but sadly humans are not. Judges could easily be favourable to one side which should not be the case. They should try to be neutral but this is not always possible.

not if the shareeah law wasn't implemented (if implementing a jury is indeed prohibited). it would seriously be taken as a joke as it would be "put to the side."

Oh I would be suggesting the jury system to be implemented in a proper Islamic country ruled by the entire Shariah law.

I still don't see how Juries would treat serious criminal matters as a joke. :hmm:

i dont see why it is needed to bring new systems in. im sure the scholars of the past would have derived rulings as to how to analyze evidences. after all, some laws involve taking the life of someone...such as the ruling of the murderer. so it wouldn't have been taken lightly.

Probably this system was may not needed in the past but I think now it might be needed for some cases. I wouldn't use Juries for petty criminal cases.

but cant that apply to the jury as well:?

The idea of a jury is to have people all over the country to come together and decide upon the facts of the case. Each person will have different opinions. I doubt that 12 people randomly chosen by a computer would appear to share exactly the same opinions. Some might be more critical of evidence than others...

we have to assume that he would be fearing Allah in regards to that. come to think of it, i wonder if there are conditions in regards for someone to be a judge...

Yeah which is why I say juries in an Islamic state should have to be Muslims with specific requirements to be follows. To be honest there is really no way of finding out if anyone truly fears Allah...

but how do we know that there views are accurate and aren't influenced by other factors, such as personal..

Same applies for a Judge. Which is why it is safer to have twelve people with different views and would be able to share those views based upon the evidence and come to a conclusion...

[Sampharo]

Asslamu Aliakum.

I know Juries are not used in Islamic courts. However which is why I was asking is there anything in the Quran or the Hadith to suggest that the use of Juries is haram? Yet I have not been given any sources to confirm that the use of Juries are not approved of.

The precise description of judge and judicial system in Islam can be found by seeking the apporpriate resources. Not everything is described in full details in quran, otherwise it will be 50,000 pages long and more. You'll need to go explore yourself in order to understand the judicial system details in Islam and what is set and what is not.

The reason Juries are seen as better than Judges because it eliminates the idea of being biased. It is well known that Judges are pro-police and sometimes do not question the evidence that is presented. Juries have a higher chance of looking at all probabilities and with mixed views about the evidence being presented.

Again that is your personal opinion that most learned people disagree with. Juries are better in eliminating bias is mostly a perceived advantage than real, and the advantages at that stop right there with every other comparison becoming a stark failure.

Juries are a slice of the middle of society with inclusion of all intellectual weaknesses (dare I say mediocrity) and prejudices. They carry their own problems, preconceptions, and dare I say racisms and other hatred within their hearts. A judge politically selected in a corrupt society might not be much better, but is a fundamentally flawed approach to apply democratic stupidity on issues of justice. They are also subject to peer pressure, personal sympathies, complexes, or easily impressed with non-substantiated razzle-dazzle debating performance that would never pass a perceptive justice seeking judge. Like I said, juries are easily confused and tampered with and the current system is more of a game where the better lawyer wins, not who has the right.

Juries could consider outcomes that the judge may not have foreseen. It doesn't take a legally qualified person to assess the evidence. Anyone can do this...

Completely opposite! Juries are bound from making conjecture or asking questions and not allowed to consider anything but what was presented. People can lose their rights even if they are clear because a lawyer made a mistake in not mentioning something that even if jury members notice, they will not be able to pursue. As for assessing the evidence, to suggest that a dense group of people are better at analysis than an intellectual superior single person is a statistically proven fallacy. The old adage is very appropriate: "A person is smart, a crowd is stupid"

Anyway, this whole argument is a moot point, because as I explained earlier, juries are not part of the Islamic judicial system nor is there room for their consideration.

[kawaiigardiner]

Asslamu Aliakum.

I know Juries are not used in Islamic courts. However which is why I was asking is there anything in the Quran or the Hadith to suggest that the use of Juries is haram? Yet I have not been given any sources to confirm that the use of Juries are not approved of.

The reason Juries are seen as better than Judges because it eliminates the idea of being biased. It is well known that Judges are pro-police and sometimes do not question the evidence that is presented. Juries have a higher chance of looking at all probabilities and with mixed views about the evidence being presented. Juries could consider outcomes that the judge may not have foreseen. It doesn't take a legally qualified person to assess the evidence. Anyone can do this...

I believe that you're being very optimistic when it comes to the nature of humans. I'm not an advocate for Sharia but lets look a the reality - Juries are stacked by the defence to ensure that only those who are sympathetic are selected for jury duty, the defence will use emotion laden justifications for a given action when the only thing under consideration is guilt or innocence - mitigating circumstances only come into play at the sentencing and NOT the guilt or innocence phase of the trial.

I would sooner see a board of judges make the decision (like the Dutch system) in which judges assess the matter based on the facts and not the song and dance put on display by the defence team. In New Zealand we've already seen several people get off scott free using the panic defence - a women who was stabbed 213 times had her reputation dragged through the mud to make out that the stabber was a 'moral saint' when compared to her.