At least in your typical European country, there wouldn’t be even a jury to begin with, since most European countries follow Roman aka Civil law. It is a better system than the tribal Saxon aka common law followed by USA, but in cases like this (someone did something that violates the law, but is morally right) it gets really messy.
Most continental European countries have law systems that are based on or are at least heavily influenced by the Napoleonic code. And the Napoleonic code has trial by jury for serious crimes (like murder).
Even then, trial by jury is only rarely invoked, extremely restricted, often mixed (professional judges and common citizens) and there are often restrictions when it applies; and I genuinely don’t think that a jury would be used in this case, in most of those countries.
So it’s more like a technicality in this specific case.
Also note that at least Portugal wouldn’t even allow a jury in this case, as Mangione is answering for terrorism (bullshit, I know, but…). Other countries likely have similar restrictions.
I doubt that he would be prosecuted for terrorism in any other western democracies, it seems to be part of the USA prosecution habit of stacking up as many charges as possible, combined with the very broad anti terrorism laws after 2001.
Every country evolved differently. And even from the law systems that evolved directly from the code Napoleon, there are some (I know of 1 atleast) without any lay jury system: The Netherlands scrapped the lay jury in 1813 already, basically right after Napoleon was kicked out.
Honestly I wish we had jury nullification in Europe. It seems like a really useful check that forces common law systems to touch grass.
At least in your typical European country, there wouldn’t be even a jury to begin with, since most European countries follow Roman aka Civil law. It is a better system than the tribal Saxon aka common law followed by USA, but in cases like this (someone did something that violates the law, but is morally right) it gets really messy.
Most continental European countries have law systems that are based on or are at least heavily influenced by the Napoleonic code. And the Napoleonic code has trial by jury for serious crimes (like murder).
Fair point.
Even then, trial by jury is only rarely invoked, extremely restricted, often mixed (professional judges and common citizens) and there are often restrictions when it applies; and I genuinely don’t think that a jury would be used in this case, in most of those countries.
So it’s more like a technicality in this specific case.
Also note that at least Portugal wouldn’t even allow a jury in this case, as Mangione is answering for terrorism (bullshit, I know, but…). Other countries likely have similar restrictions.
I doubt that he would be prosecuted for terrorism in any other western democracies, it seems to be part of the USA prosecution habit of stacking up as many charges as possible, combined with the very broad anti terrorism laws after 2001.
If prosecuted as a murder, a jury trial would happen in a bunch of countries: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-countries-the-jury-trial-system.html Imo you assume wrong in this case.
I didn’t know this
Every country evolved differently. And even from the law systems that evolved directly from the code Napoleon, there are some (I know of 1 atleast) without any lay jury system: The Netherlands scrapped the lay jury in 1813 already, basically right after Napoleon was kicked out.