NationStates Jolt Archive

Japan is just days away from instituting its own jury system (Kind of, these are more properly titled lay judges than an actual jury) for the first time since the failed (and almost worthless) experiment during the 1920's to early 40's. It's been fascinating for me to watch, not only because of the changes that are being brought to the Japanese legal system (And about time too, since most of them seem to be working to making the process fairer and more transparent), but because of the reaction by the Japanese people. Pretty much, most Japanese are not happy with the up-coming system citing worries about how normal citizens who have no legal training could possibly judge rightly in a criminal case. Many are also worried about how they could be asked to judge another, not just from a legal standpoint, but from a moral and social standpoint. (If you want to read about it, go here: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/JTsearch5.cgi?term1=CITIZEN%20JUSTICE ).

As an American, I have always taken having a jury for granted and view it as the best form of justice. The right to be judged by my peers instead of by just the government is something that I view as one of those bedrock protections that check government power, but in seeing the arguments that the Japanese are putting forward, I have to wonder, is it a good idea for people who do have no legal training whatsoever to be sitting in judgment? Does that open the system to more abuse (We always do hear complaints that legal arguments are now more about emotions and theatrics and legal trickery than facts)?

So what does NSG think of the jury system? And for those whose legal system is not based on English Common Law and don't have such a system, what does your country do?

Hmmm.....Imll be honest....Id have to ask Neo >.>

I wonder what standards the government would use to determine who is considered my peer. There's a better than even chance that the governments standards are far broader than my own.

You din;t have em?

The Jury system is fine, but I feel many places have gone too far in the Jury selection process. Denying a potential Juror for cause is one thing, but the practice of giving each side "free" denials just turns the entire process into a competition as to who can stack the Jury better.

Hmmm.....Imll be honest....Id have to ask Neo >.>

You'd have to ask Neo Art about how you feel about juries? Oy vey...

I can appreciate the problems the jury system has. If there were no fear of a corrupt government, then a jury would be a waste of time. It's really a gamble. you risk that the government is not biased against you, or you risk that the jury is full of idiots who'd be convinced by anyone as long as they super pinky swore. On the other hand, the jury could be full of intelligent progressive people who appreciate facts and the government could be putting you on trial because it doesn't really like the way you act regardless of the ethics. At least with the jury you've got a better chance. A corrupt government hangs around for every trial, the jury members are gone after one.

Hmmm.....Imll be honest....Id have to ask Neo >.>
So your opinion of the jury system is that you're going to have to ask a lawyer what your opinion is? :confused:

I wonder what standards the government would use to determine who is considered my peer. There's a better than even chance that the governments standards are far broader than my own.

Well, if you're OJ Simpson, their standards are pretty goddamn broad...

Well, if you're OJ Simpson, their standards are pretty goddamn broad...

But I'm not O.J. and my standards are extremely narrow.

But I'm not O.J. and my standards are extremely narrow.

Well, then you're probably screwed if you're ever going on trial.

Of course, if it's for a crime related to your profession (like me and accounting), I'd be tried by CPAs because they would constitute my peers. That's probably not a good thing considering it would be a lot harder to dupe them than somebody with no experience in the field.

Well, then you're probably screwed if you're ever going on trial.

Of course, if it's for a crime related to your profession (like me and accounting), I'd be tried by CPAs because they would constitute my peers. That's probably not a good thing considering it would be a lot harder to dupe them than somebody with no experience in the field.

I probably would be screwed since Satanists aren't noted for mercy, and more than a few of us are lawyers.

I probably would be screwed since Satanists aren't noted for mercy, and more than a few of us are lawyers.

Birds of a feather...

Birds of a feather...

I AM not a lawyer and I resent the implication.

I AM not a lawyer and I resent the implication.

:p

Sorry, had to.

:p

Sorry, had to.

I am, however NOT noted for mercy. I will remember this Darth Elmo.:tongue:

I have to wonder, is it a good idea for people who do have no legal training whatsoever to be sitting in judgment?

Just think of what would happen if you had a jury af all lawyers. By the time their very first case was decided, everyone involved in the case would be dead from old age.
:p

Just think of what would happen if you had a jury af all lawyers. By the time their very first case was decided, everyone involved in the case would be dead from old age.
:p

actually, despite the joke, it's been my experience that lawyers as jurors tend to do just the opposite, and very rapidly make up their mind, or reach consensus. It's a big part of our job to be able to deconstruct arguments very quickly, find their flaws and weaknesses. We might be paid to argue minutia to death, but that doesn't mean that in our heads we don't already have an argument all made up. Sometimes in direct opposition to the point we're arguing.

Jury systems are good. They'd be even better if they had fewer drama obsessors.

The Jury System is the best system I can think of, minus the Belt Of Truth! I find it strange that Japan didn't already have a Jury System in place.

The Jury System is the best system I can think of, minus the Belt Of Truth!

Confessors. *nod*

actually, despite the joke, it's been my experience that lawyers as jurors tend to do just the opposite, and very rapidly make up their mind, or reach consensus. It's a big part of our job to be able to deconstruct arguments very quickly, find their flaws and weaknesses. We might be paid to argue minutia to death, but that doesn't mean that in our heads we don't already have an argument all made up. Sometimes in direct opposition to the point we're arguing.

True enough when you concider thigs like the supreme court. (they dont take forever)

The way I look at it, a jury is kind of like a computer. They can only function with the data given to them. The biggest problem with all justice systems is withheld and/or tampered evidence with little or no accountability by those that are suppose to provide it. (like the OJ trial.... they should try to go after whoever tampered with the crime scene investigation and bring them to court for accessory to murder)

The Jury System is the best system I can think of, minus the Belt Of Truth! I find it strange that Japan didn't already have a Jury System in place.
The history of it is rather interesting, but long.

I like the jury system. It gives the defendant 2 safeguards on his freedom. The judge who represents the state and is supposed to be neutral and people.
Judges have over turned jury verdicts or reduced sentences (the British nanny in the shaking death). And juries provide a way to reach people free of the legal system.

Confessors. *nod*

"Car-DI-NAL! Get... The Comfy chair!"

I'm strongly against a jury system that only answers yes or no to the question of guilt. I'd like to see a system that gives a reason for their decisions.

The Belgian jury system was recently found to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (Taxquet v. Belgium), and it's going to be interesting to see if that has reprecussions for the rest of Europe. But the Court followed my line of reasoning to some degree...

I'm strongly against a jury system that only answers yes or no to the question of guilt. I'd like to see a system that gives a reason for their decisions.

The Belgian jury system was recently found to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (Taxquet v. Belgium), and it's going to be interesting to see if that has reprecussions for the rest of Europe. But the Court followed my line of reasoning to some degree...

Scottish law has three verdicts: guilty, not guilty and "not proven." Not proven means that the prosecution didn't provide enough evidence to definitively establish the guilt of the person being prosecuted, but on the other hand, the jury doesn't feel sufficiently convinced to establish a not guilty verdict. Both equate to an aquittal, it's merely a label, but I think it's an important distinction.

Scottish law has three verdicts: guilty, not guilty and "not proven." Not proven means that the prosecution didn't provide enough evidence to definitively establish the guilt of the person being prosecuted, but on the other hand, the jury doesn't feel sufficiently convinced to establish a not guilty verdict. Both equate to an aquittal, it's merely a label, but I think it's an important distinction.

Silly anachronism.

Silly anachronism.

Reality cannot be perfectly bifurcated into "guilty" and "not guilty". Unless you suggest otherwise?

Reality cannot be perfectly bifurcated into "guilty" and "not guilty". Unless you suggest otherwise?

And I do. As does the Scottish system, de facto.

Silly anachronism.
Because...?

Because...?

Because it says "We know you did it, but the prosecution haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Which is a contradiction, since the jury still have reasonable doubt, obviously, and thus can't know that he did it. And the accused will be left with the stigma of being implied guilty even if he's not convicted of any crime. Seems like a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence as codified in Article 6 of the ECHR.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

The court is there to determine guilt and innocence. Not something in between.

"Car-DI-NAL! Get... The Comfy chair!"

Reference fail.

The court is there to determine guilt and innocence. Not something in between.

I always thought the court decided guilty or not guilty.

I always thought the court decided guilty or not guilty.

And the legal difference between "Not guilty" and "innocent" is...

And the legal difference between "Not guilty" and "innocent" is...

"innocent" is not a legal term?

Reference fail.

Only because you were expecting it. :wink:

Only because you were expecting it. :wink:

No, because I was referencing something else entirely.

"innocent" is not a legal term?

And since being "innocent" means to be "free from guilt", the difference is... Non-existing.

And since being "innocent" means to be "free from guilt", the difference is... Non-existing.

Not at all. When a person is "innocent", they didn't do whatever it is you're accusing them of.

When a verdict of "not guilty" is rendered, it means they weren't proved to have been guilty.

Not at all. When a person is "innocent", they didn't do whatever it is you're accusing them of.

When a verdict of "not guilty" is rendered, it means they weren't proved to have been guilty.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and when a verdict of not guillty is rendered it means the person was indeed found to be innocent of the charges against him or her by the court.

So it's correct to say that the court determines guilt and innocence, even if they only hand out verdicts of guilty and not guilty.

But I tire of arguing semantics.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and when a verdict of not guillty is rendered it means the person was indeed found to be innocent of the charges against him or her by the court.

So it's correct to say that the court determines guilt and innocence, even if they only hand out verdicts of guilty and not guilty.

But I tire of arguing semantics.

Well, I always thought of the court as determining guilt or lack of guilt. However, it really is semantics as you said.

I'm sure Neo Art will wander in here in a few minutes and butcher the English language while he gives us an exact legal response.

Well, I always thought of the court as determining guilt or lack of guilt. However, it really is semantics as you said.

I'm sure Neo Art will wander in here in a few minutes and butcher the English language while he gives us an exact legal response.

I don't know what you expect him to say, but I'm sure he'll appreciate that there are some posters that see him as a kind of final and absolute arbiter.

I don't know what you expect him to say, but I'm sure he'll appreciate that there are some posters that see him as a kind of final and absolute arbiter.

He does have a way of stating things absolutely and unequivocally. Also, as many times as he's proved me wrong, I'm getting to be afraid to doubt him.

Cat-Tribe hasn't been around lately, or I might say that he might wander in here and give us an exact legal definition, but without the English language being massacred in the process.

While I appreciate my name being brought up, I'm unsure what more I can add, except this. What I think Gravlen is trying to say is essentially as follows:

1) as a matter of law, one is presumed innocent until guilt has been proven
2) a finding of "not guilty" is a finding that guilt has not been proven.

Combining those two legal concepts into one cohesive statement of law it is this: "if you are found not guilty, you are legally innocent".

He does have a way of stating things absolutely and unequivocally. Also, as many times as he's proved me wrong, I'm getting to be afraid to doubt him.

Cat-Tribe hasn't been around lately, or I might say that he might wander in here and give us an exact legal definition, but without the English language being massacred in the process.

I still don't get what you're after, and what it's got to do with juries in general or the Scotish legal system in particular.

While I appreciate my name being brought up, I'm unsure what more I can add, except this. What I think Gravlen is trying to say is essentially as follows:

1) as a matter of law, one is presumed innocent until guilt has been proven
2) a finding of "not guilty" is a finding that guilt has not been proven.

Combining those two legal concepts into one cohesive statement of law it is this: "if you are found not guilty, you are legally innocent".

Sounds about right, yes.

I'm impressed how quickly you respond when summoned, by the way! :tongue:

While I appreciate my name being brought up, I'm unsure what more I can add, except this. What I think Gravlen is trying to say is essentially as follows:

1) as a matter of law, one is presumed innocent until guilt has been proven
2) a finding of "not guilty" is a finding that guilt has not been proven.

Combining those two legal concepts into one cohesive statement of law it is this: "if you are found not guilty, you are legally innocent".

Legally considered innocent... yeah, ok. I just remember having a long conversation with a lawyer once about the technical difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" and it kind of stuck with me.

Lawyers confuse me though. I think they do it deliberately.

Lawyers confuse me though. I think they do it deliberately.

Why do you think we get paid the big bucks?

Why do you think we get paid the big bucks?

Because you can confuse us into thinking we need you? :p


Ok, back to the thread. My take on juries goes like this:

On the one hand, a jury is a great system, if not for the fact that it's hard to find 12 average people who are idiots and can't read.

In addition, giving fresh eyes to the case (as in, haven't seen 14,000 criminal cases before) means they aren't prejudiced (as much) as those in the legal system full-time are. A judge may be used to seeing people lie through their teeth all day, and think that a man who is telling the truth is lying just because they all lie.

This is a gross generalization of course, but you get the picture. A jury of 12 people adds various points of view, backgrounds, and opinions to the case. It gives it a more well-rounded view.

However, juries are subject also to completely ignore the law and go with sympathy where it suits them. It happens. Even sometimes we get a hung jury 11-1 because one of them falls in love with the defendant (or something) and this was missed during selection.

Someone brought up that jurors don't necessarily have law degrees, and they might not understand the law. This is true, but the judge, among his many functions, has to explain the law to the jury and respond to legal questions asked by the jury in the jury room. This is part of the process. I don't really see that as much of a problem.

So, in summation, I think the option of a jury trial should always be available, but the option to waive a jury trial should also be available.

Mickey Spillane, anyone?

In the immortal words of Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester III, M.D., "Oh, you don't understand? Well, then, let me 'Spillane'!"

However, juries are subject also to completely ignore the law

This is a good thing. Jury nullification is an important bulwark against the tyrannical eternal night that is collectivism. It should be promoted and used more often.

This is a good thing. Jury nullification is an important bulwark against the tyrannical eternal night that is collectivism. It should be promoted and used more often.

I don't see that it has a place in a functioning democracy.

Because you can confuse us into thinking we need you? :p


Ok, back to the thread. My take on juries goes like this:

On the one hand, a jury is a great system, if not for the fact that it's hard to find 12 average people who are idiots and can't read.

In addition, giving fresh eyes to the case (as in, haven't seen 14,000 criminal cases before) means they aren't prejudiced (as much) as those in the legal system full-time are. A judge may be used to seeing people lie through their teeth all day, and think that a man who is telling the truth is lying just because they all lie.

This is a gross generalization of course, but you get the picture. A jury of 12 people adds various points of view, backgrounds, and opinions to the case. It gives it a more well-rounded view.

However, juries are subject also to completely ignore the law and go with sympathy where it suits them. It happens. Even sometimes we get a hung jury 11-1 because one of them falls in love with the defendant (or something) and this was missed during selection.

Someone brought up that jurors don't necessarily have law degrees, and they might not understand the law. This is true, but the judge, among his many functions, has to explain the law to the jury and respond to legal questions asked by the jury in the jury room. This is part of the process. I don't really see that as much of a problem.

So, in summation, I think the option of a jury trial should always be available, but the option to waive a jury trial should also be available.

And you have no problem with the jusy only answering "Yes" and "No" and not giving a reason for its decision?

And you have no problem with the jusy only answering "Yes" and "No" and not giving a reason for its decision?

Actually, I would love for a jury to be able to give their reasoning for their decision. I also would like for juries to be able to question witnesses.

I don't see that it has a place in a functioning democracy.

Bluth Corporation doesn't advocate democracy. He advocates fascistic corporatism.

Actually, I would love for a jury to be able to give their reasoning for their decision. I also would like for juries to be able to question witnesses.

Interactive juries! I like it!

Bluth Corporation doesn't advocate democracy. He advocates fascistic corporatism.

In that case, he would do well to familiarize himself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, voting booth fetishist, and suffragette, Ayn Rand.

Interactive juries! I like it!

I've proposed this several times, and no one has ever given me a good reason why not. The closest anyone ever got is that it might make the trials longer. The one after that was that jurors, not knowing the law, might ask questions they're not allowed to.

To the former, in the interests of justice we should accept that.
To the latter, I would give both prosecution and defense attorneys the opportunity to object to any question that breaks the rules.

Bluth Corporation doesn't advocate democracy. He advocates fascistic corporatism.

Please do not make up lies.

I advocate neither. I advocate individual sovereignty, where the individual's sacred natural rights are not subordinated to the will of the collective.

voting booth fetishist, and suffragette

No, she wasn't.

She realized that the form of government is not an end in itself but merely a means to an end; what really matters is what government actually does.

Please do not make up lies.

I advocate neither. I advocate individual sovereignty, where the individual's sacred natural rights are not subordinated to the will of the collective.

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/startrek-borg.jpg

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

No, she wasn't.

Oh but she was. Quite the kinky kitten in bed. Rrrrawr!

I've proposed this several times, and no one has ever given me a good reason why not. The closest anyone ever got is that it might make the trials longer. The one after that was that jurors, not knowing the law, might ask questions they're not allowed to.

To the former, in the interests of justice we should accept that.
To the latter, I would give both prosecution and defense attorneys the opportunity to object to any question that breaks the rules.

In principle, I would have no objections to letting the jurors ask questions. In systems with lay judges, the lay judges get to ask all the questions they want to.

In principle, I would have no objections to letting the jurors ask questions. In systems with lay judges, the lay judges get to ask all the questions they want to.

Now, you say in principle, why is that?

I've proposed this several times, and no one has ever given me a good reason why not. The closest anyone ever got is that it might make the trials longer. The one after that was that jurors, not knowing the law, might ask questions they're not allowed to.

To the former, in the interests of justice we should accept that.
To the latter, I would give both prosecution and defense attorneys the opportunity to object to any question that breaks the rules.

Yes it could make a trial last longer but the more info a jury can get the better they can function.

The list of "questions not to ask" should be pretty short and easy to explain. Shouldn't it? (don't ask "Did you do it?" and the like)

Did you rip em a new on those threads? :D

Did you rip em a new on those threads? :D

No, because I ripped em a new one in real life.

No, because I ripped em a new one in real life.

Keep up the fight. If I'm on a jury day after day, week after week and just want to jump up and say "Jesus Christ already!!! Sir! Have you ever fired a gun before?" or "You go outside right now and prove you can run 2 miles in 9 minutes!" Or.... well you get the idea!

Keep up the fight. If I'm on a jury day after day, week after week and just want to jump up and say "Jesus Christ already!!! Sir! Have you ever fired a gun before?" or "You go outside right now and prove you can run 2 miles in 9 minutes!" Or.... well you get the idea!

That was the most coherent argument I've had against my idea yet.

That was the most coherent argument I've had against my idea yet.

An "interactive" jury should be just that. So now your against it?

An "interactive" jury should be just that. So now your against it?

Screaming for the defendant to run 9 miles isn't exactly what I had in mind.

Screaming for the defendant to run 9 miles isn't exactly what I had in mind.

Witnesses too. If they make some some sort of claim that has a baring on the case, they should back it up. (just like we do here)

Witness: "I was at the crime scene at 11:15 but was 2 miles away at 11:17 when the shot was fired which is why I didn't hear it. I run fast."

Well...show me that's even possible first. The defendent could get the death penalty. I want as many details as I can get if I'm a juror.

Witnesses too. If they make some some sort of claim that has a baring on the case, they should back it up. (just like we do here)

Witness: "I was at the crime scene at 11:15 but was 2 miles away at 11:17 when the shot was fired which is why I didn't hear it."

Well...show me that's even possible first. The defendent could get the death penalty. I want as many details as I can get if I'm a juror.

just how dumb do you think opposing counsel usually is?

just how dumb do you think opposing counsel usually is?

How much effort does an appointed counselor REALLY put forth?

And sometimes, every possibility just does not occur to someone. No matter which side they're on.

Considering the conviction rate in Japan is something in excess of 99%, a move to jury-based legal system is probably well overdue. I just can't accept that any police force, no matter how efficient - Japanese or otherwise, could possibly be that good.
I'm sure even the Mounties don't always get their man, despite what they claim.

Here's a succinct history of the Japanese criminal legal system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan

How much effort does an appointed counselor REALLY put forth?

And sometimes, every possibility just does not occur to someone. No matter which side they're on.
Can't juries return to ask for further explanation of certain aspects of the case?
If so, then any questions they have can be raised there.

Can't juries return to ask for further explanation of certain aspects of the case?
If so, then any questions they have can be raised there.

They can ask the judge questions and request evidence that was presented during the trial. They can't ever ask a witness, or counselors any questions.

Wouldnt becoming fully interactive during the trial work better?

I'm strongly against a jury system that only answers yes or no to the question of guilt. I'd like to see a system that gives a reason for their decisions.

The Belgian jury system was recently found to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (Taxquet v. Belgium), and it's going to be interesting to see if that has reprecussions for the rest of Europe. But the Court followed my line of reasoning to some degree...

Interesting, do you have some links so I can read up on this?

Considering the conviction rate in Japan is something in excess of 99%, a move to jury-based legal system is probably well overdue. I just can't accept that any police force, no matter how efficient - Japanese or otherwise, could possibly be that good.
I'm sure even the Mounties don't always get their man, despite what they claim.

Here's a succinct history of the Japanese criminal legal system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan
Oh the system has proven to have been abused a number of times.

That said, it should also be known that the police and DAs in Japan don't move unless they are REALLY sure they can win a conviction.

Oh the system has proven to have been abused a number of times.

That said, it should also be known that the police and DAs in Japan don't move unless they are REALLY sure they can win a conviction.
But isn't most of that based almost solely on the police having elicited a confession?
And that the police can hold a suspect almost indefinitely until they're 'ready' to sign said confession?

I always thought the court decided guilty or not guilty.
Depends where you are.

As we've been discussing, under Scots law you can be found 'proven', 'not proven' or 'not guilty'.

But isn't most of that based almost solely on the police having elicited a confession?

And that the police can hold a suspect almost indefinitely until they're 'ready' to sign said confession?
Not exactly. The police can only hold you for two days before turing the case over to the DA. The DA can hold you for 28 days for investigation (And can hold you for another 28 with permission from a judge, which is almost always granted). The police and the DA do place a very high premium on getting a confession though and a number of cases have come up where people since convicted have claimed, and proved, that their confessions were forced. That said, courts do require the DAs to have more than just a confession during the trial to prevent forced confessions being the only evidence used to convict.

Not exactly. The police can only hold you for two days before turing the case over to the DA. The DA can hold you for 28 days for investigation (And can hold you for another 28 with permission from a judge, which is almost always granted). The police and the DA do place a very high premium on getting a confession though and a number of cases have come up where people since convicted have claimed, and proved, that their confessions were forced. That said, courts do require the DAs to have more than just a confession during the trial to prevent forced confessions being the only evidence used to convict.
ah I see. Cheers for that explanation.

Japan is just days away from instituting its own jury system (Kind of, these are more properly titled lay judges than an actual jury) for the first time since the failed (and almost worthless) experiment during the 1920's to early 40's. It's been fascinating for me to watch, not only because of the changes that are being brought to the Japanese legal system (And about time too, since most of them seem to be working to making the process fairer and more transparent), but because of the reaction by the Japanese people. Pretty much, most Japanese are not happy with the up-coming system citing worries about how normal citizens who have no legal training could possibly judge rightly in a criminal case. Many are also worried about how they could be asked to judge another, not just from a legal standpoint, but from a moral and social standpoint. (If you want to read about it, go here: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/JTsearch5.cgi?term1=CITIZEN%20JUSTICE ).

As an American, I have always taken having a jury for granted and view it as the best form of justice. The right to be judged by my peers instead of by just the government is something that I view as one of those bedrock protections that check government power, but in seeing the arguments that the Japanese are putting forward, I have to wonder, is it a good idea for people who do have no legal training whatsoever to be sitting in judgment? Does that open the system to more abuse (We always do hear complaints that legal arguments are now more about emotions and theatrics and legal trickery than facts)?

So what does NSG think of the jury system? And for those whose legal system is not based on English Common Law and don't have such a system, what does your country do?

Well you really don't need any leagal training to plow through evidance and make a moral judgment based on only that evidance, whether the defendant has actualy commited the crime for which he stands accused.

It is something we all do daily innit, make moral judements, I mean.

Interesting, do you have some links so I can read up on this?

Taxquet V. Belgium (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=taxquet&sessionid=23868928&skin=hudoc-en)

Now, you say in principle, why is that?

Because the jury is supposed to be seen as impartial, and the practical result of letting them ask critical questions could very well be that they take the role of prosecutors. And that's simply not their role. Their impartiality could very well be called into question, depending on what and how they ask the questions.

And it could make the defendant feel like he's facing down a whole lot of prosecutors instead of only one, and violate the principles of the adversarial system that's in place.