To Correct Chinese People's Misconceptions of the Roles of a Jury in American and British Courts

The Chinese equivalent for a jury is 事实审, which is translated to mean that a jury is only in charge of deciding upon the questions of facts presented. The Chinese equivalent for a judge is 法律审, which is translated to mean that a judge is just responsible to rule upon the questions of law presented. It is totally and absolutely a historic misconception: there are no such terms as ‘事实审’ and ‘法律审’ in the common law system. These Chinese terms are fabricated by Chinese people. In common law, facts are able to evolve or develop laws over time and law is the assembling of these facts. As a matter of fact, a jury can determine both facts and laws. In America, a jury holds the supreme position of power exceeding that of the president, congress and the Federal Supreme Court. In addition, a jury is still empowered to give sentence in seven states; in the states that still preserve the death penalty, it is this power a jury holds that can make the decision of capital punishment on a defendant. The separation and mixture of facts and laws benefits judges and allows them to forward complicated legal issues to a jury for a final verdict, and authorize them to administer the supreme power they have in an appeal; furthermore, it allows judges to be available to rule upon questions of law and to undertake constitutional review upon legal issues. In conclusion, for people to comprehend common law correctly and accurately it is critical that they understand the supreme position of power that a jury possesses.