The attitude of many ordinary citizens to Russian justice is ambiguous. Fewer and fewer people trust the judicial apparatus, believing that it is not trustworthy, since "everything has been bought everywhere." This attitude is negative, because even the criminal who commits dangerous acts is trying to justify and blame the judges for inhumanity. This kind of distrust was not constant. In the Soviet period, the court was the only body that citizens trusted their problems. Integrity, fairness of decisions and the
death penalty made it possible to maintain authority.
A jury trial came into the Russian system from the West, where democratic principles were above all. Foreign states wished that even with punishment the perpetrator had a chance to acquit or prove that he was not guilty of a crime. The judicial system has tried to share part of the sentencing responsibility with the people.
The creation of a jury in the Russian judicial system was difficult and with many contradictions, since the court was authoritarian and did not want to share its power with unprofessional people who could decide the fate of the criminal in a positive way. Many critics, who, by the way, were the majority, opposed this institution. They assured us that ordinary people canβt decide whether a person is guilty or not, as professional operative workers and investigators proved this, and judges, and not ordinary workers, should also establish guilt. But no matter how successful the criticism, the jury took their place in the courtroom. However, there were reservations regarding their authority.
It was immediately decided that the jury would not touch on the legal component, this part should be led by judges. And the first ones will have to decide only the question of whether, in their opinion, the person will be found guilty or not. This form of proceedings has been successfully operating for many years. Thus, the person under investigation can not only count on the court, but also on the opinion of ordinary people, especially if he is firmly convinced of his innocence.
The miscarriage of justice gave rise to many unpleasant rumors, and, what is most offensive, the consequences. A moratorium on the death penalty is one of the deterrents in the fight against such errors. In Soviet times, there were hundreds of people who were shot and then rehabilitated. The new
Russian judicial system with an eye to the past decided to take into account the sad experience and found a solution in adopting a moratorium.
Jurors can prevent a miscarriage of justice, so many call their decision a "golden chance." But it is always worth considering that the people who participate are not professionals, their decision is not dictated by knowledge and experience, but by simple human emotions, and there is no guarantee that these feelings can not only save the case, but exacerbate it even more. Therefore, competent lawyers advise their clients only in the most extreme and hopeless cases to use such an institution as jurors.