The countries around the world without jury trials

A bedrock of the English justice system is the right to be judged by a group of your peers – a jury. But it is far from the norm worldwide.

As the backlog in the criminal courts continues to impede justice, the government is under pressure to come up with solutions – a task given to a former judge, Brian Leveson. His recommendations include removing the right to be tried by a jury of peers in certain cases. "I don't rejoice in these recommendations, but I do believe they're absolutely essential," he wrote. There is "a real risk of total system collapse in the near future", which could "lead to a breakdown in law and order".

Lawyers argue that restricting jury trials isn't practical and could lead to discrimination against minorities. But jury trials themselves are controversial, and not without concerns of bias. Many democracies worldwide do not rely on them at all.

Italy

The criminal law system in Italy is "often referred to as a hybrid", said the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. It's a "composite of the two dominant Western models of criminal procedure": the US-UK "adversarial", in which two sides, prosecution and defence, present their cases before a judge and jury; and the European "inquisitorial", in which a judge investigates a case, collects evidence and questions witnesses.

In certain courts, professional judges work alongside "lay" judges – non-professional members of the public – to make decisions. These giudici popolari are selected from a list of eligible citizens: there is a minimum age and education level, and they cannot be members of the armed forces, police or clergy or allow religious beliefs any influence.

In 2009, the jury that found Amanda Knox guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher provoked "intense criticism" in the US, said Italian studies professor Sarah Annunziato on The Conversation. Journalists blamed the (later overturned) guilty verdict on "rampant anti-Americanism, media bias, an allegedly corrupt prosecutor, and the Italian justice system itself".

Germany

Jury trials were abolished in Germany in 1924 and most cases are tried by a professional judge or a panel of "lay" judges known as Schöffen. Councils compile lists of members of the public "deemed suitable", who are then chosen by committee for a five-year term, said The Guardian.

They must be between 25 and 69 years old, and "religious ministers, certain politicians and health professionals working in the court system are among those excluded".

France

Similarly, only the most serious cases are heard by juries in France. A criminal trial court, or cour d'assises, is comprised of three judges who deliberate with six jurors to reach a verdict, but only in cases that carry the longest sentences.

Cases that carry a maximum sentence of 15-20 years – i.e. "nearly all rape trials", said The Guardian – are tried by a panel of five judges at "département criminal courts". Dominique Pelicot, for example, was found guilty of his crimes against his wife Gisèle by a panel of five judges.

India

Jury trials, introduced under British colonial rule, were abolished after a landmark ruling in the infamous Nanavati case. A navy commander, Kawas Nanavati, was acquitted by a jury of murdering his English wife's lover despite "overwhelming evidence" – and his own confession.

The judge declared the verdict "perverse", said the BBC. He referred the case to the High Court of what was then called Bombay, which found Nanavati guilty. The trial amplified decades of concern about the jury system and its failure to deliver independent or impartial verdicts. It "wrote the death warrant of jury trials in India"; they were phased out before being officially abolished in 1973.

Most of Asia's common law jurisdictions (countries such as Singapore, Pakistan and Malaysia) have also abolished jury trials, amid concerns that juries are susceptible to bias.

USA

The Constitution states, five times, that all citizens should have the right to a trial by jury. But power has slowly shifted away from juries towards judges and other branches of government, as the use of plea bargains, restorative justice and bench trials (when a defendant forgoes the right to a jury trial) have grown.

Bench trials can be "advantageous in cases where legal technicalities are paramount", said The Hammer Lawfirm; judges can navigate legal arguments better than the average person. But the decision rests solely with the judge, "which can be a double-edged sword".

At a state (rather than federal) level, eligibility for a jury trial can vary. Some states reserve them only for the most serious cases. "Petty" offences, which carry a maximum sentence of six months, can be tried without a jury after a Supreme Court ruling in 1970.