Aruban justice system has US similarities

An essay by Sam Redman

In discussions about justice in Aruba a primary outrage that so many individuals express is that the Aruban (Dutch) judicial system is closed and that the process is not government "by the people," as the US system is purported to be. They say that in the US courts everything is available for public view and that all is disclosed in "open court." Some often lament that the jury system provides the only way to ensure a fair trial and that the Dutch use of judges means that there cannot be an equitable execution of justice. While the particulars of disclosure of information (or lack of it) during an investigation is another matter of discussion, I would like to address now the misconceptions regarding the "right to a jury trial" in the United States.

It may surprise many people to learn that in the US many judicial decisions are made by judges with no jury, because you do not always have a right to a jury trial.

It is quite a shock for many people to learn that there is no jury trial in the US by constitutional right in domestic relations, juvenile trials, equity cases or in mental hearings, as well as in many other matters which I will illustrate. Several examples describe this, widely unknown, situation; Defendant Justices of the Probate and the Family Court sit at courts adjudicating. There is no jury trial, no discovery, no strict rules of evidence. This means family courts (domestic matters and custody cases) and probate courts (wills, estates etc) do not have a jury and matters are decided by a judge, often an appointed position. Further, juveniles themselves do not have a United States Constitutional right to a jury trial as a general proposition. Some states do allow jury trial for some juvenile cases, but most states do not allow jury trials for juveniles

Plus, there are other "no jury" trials. If a case concerning admiralty and maritime matters is filed in federal court, pursuant to United States statutes, there is no right to a jury trial. In most states, a DUI defendant has no right to a jury (The US Supreme court ruling took away that right), but a few states allow it. For any criminal charge where the maximum penalty is six months or less in jail, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant has no right to a jury trial (decided by a single judge).

The entire appeals process is done without a jury, usually appointed judges. The Supreme Court of the United States is all appointed judges (no jury of your peers).

Does the situation of "having no juries" to try the cases of domestic relations, juvenile, equity, mental hearing, maritime matters, DUI's and crimes with up to a six month jail term and all of the appeals courts mean that the US is government "over the people," as opposed to "of the people?"