Guide to Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities

K E Y   F E AT U R E S   O F   A   J U R Y
In general terms, the jury consists of a small group of ordinary citizens sum-
moned at random from the community and brought together to decide a legal
controversy. The jurors rarely have any formal legal education nor do they gen-
erally receive any training for the task for which they have been summoned.
Jurors are amateurs rather than professionals. They listen to witnesses, hear
arguments of opposing counsel, receive instructions from the court, and then
retire to 
deliberate
amongst themselves until they have reached a verdict. While
acting in their formal capacity, jurors comprise a vital organ of the state justice
system. Yet, after returning their verdict, they return to their community and
regain their ordinary civil status and anonymity.
The jury is a quintessentially democratic institution. Class, race, gender, and
other barriers that once restricted jury service to property-owning men find no
place in the contemporary jury, having been invalidated by either the legislature
or the highest courts of the land. On a jury, all are equal. Every juror, regardless
of background, education, or accomplishments in life, is entitled to only one
36
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
J u r i e s
deliberate: to present contradicting argu-
ments and choose a common course of
action based upon them, or, characterized
by such careful discussion
■ ■ ■  
T H E   T W E LV E   A N G R Y   M E N
■ ■ ■
Our civilization has decided, and
very justly decided, that determin-
ing the guilt or innocence of men
is a thing too important to be
trusted to trained men. If it wishes
for light upon that awful matter, it
asks men who know no more law
than I know, but who can feel the
things I felt in the jury box. When
it wants a library catalogued, or
the solar system discovered, or any
trifle of that kind, it uses up its
specialists. But when it wishes any-
thing done which is really serious,
it collects twelve of the ordinary
men standing round. (Chesterton
1957, pp. 55–56)

vote, and each vote counts equally. Furthermore, in the deliberations each juror
may contribute to the discussion; no one is barred from speaking. Jurors derive
the respect of their fellow jurors on the basis of the persuasiveness of their argu-
ments and analyses. As is evident, the jury is a 
meritocracy
(i.e., governed by
ability or competence), and it is only fitting that its members bear collective
responsibility for the verdict.
At the same time that jurors perform a public service, jury service provides
a major benefit to the jurors. French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville
(1805–1859), looking at the United States through European eyes, appreciated
the point:
The jury contributes powerfully to form the judgment and to increase the natu-
ral intelligence of a people; and this, in my opinion, is its greatest advantage.
It may be regarded as a gratuitous public school, ever open, in which every juror
learns his rights . . . and becomes practically acquainted with the laws, which are
brought within the reach of his capacity by the efforts of the bar, the advice of
the judge, and even the passions of the parties. . . . I do not know whether the
jury is useful to those who have lawsuits, but I am certain it is highly beneficial
to those who judge them; and I look upon it as one of the most efficacious
means for the education of the people which society can employ. (Tocqueville
1945, pp. 295–296)
N AT U R E   O F   T H E   J U R Y ’ S   D E C I S I O N
The accepted dogma among academics, lawyers, and judges alike regard-
ing the nature of the jury’s decision is that issues of fact are for the jury to
decide and issues of law are for the court. But why, then, is the jury’s task not
completed once it has determined the facts of the case? Why does the jury not
simply report those facts to the judge for the judge to then apply the law to the
facts? The 
heretical
answer, one might hazard, is because the jury’s role is not
confined to determining the facts. Part of the jury’s responsibility, albeit a rarely
acknowledged part, is to temper the rigor of the law with the community’s
sense of justice.
Some of the most celebrated trials of history involved juries that spurned
the “correct” legal verdict in favor of one that accorded with their sense of jus-
tice. For example, during Bushell’s Case (1670) in England, the jury ignored the
judge’s admonitions and refused to return a verdict of guilty despite being
ordered on more than one occasion to do so. Similarly, during the sedition trial
of John Peter Zenger (1697–1746) in colonial America in 1735, Zenger’s attor-
ney, Andrew Hamilton (1676?–1741), urged the jurors to look to their con-
sciences in judging their fellow man. And, these two examples are not historical
anachronisms. In England in 1985, Clive Ponting, an assistant secretary for the
Ministry of Defense, was charged with violating the Official Secrets Act after he
leaked classified information to parliament. There was no question that, as a fac-
tual matter, Ponting had violated the act. Yet the jury acquitted. For supporters
of the jury system, cases such as these represent the jury in its finest hour, dis-
pensing justice in the face of iniquitous laws and unmerited prosecutions. But
even in more mundane trials, jurors often resolve factual ambiguities to accord
with their view of the equities of the case.
The jury forms the link between ordinary citizens and the state. It is the
community’s protection against out-of-touch legislators, corrupt prosecutors,
and biased judges. The jurors bring common sense and the lay person’s sense
of right and wrong into the formal legal system. Jurors represent the voice of the
people and, in turn, provide assurance to the people that their values and per-
spectives will not be ignored in the decision-making process. Whereas judges
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
37
J u r i e s
meritocracy: a system of society or govern-
ment in which individuals are rewarded based
on individual achievement
■ ■ ■  
heresy: an opinion about religion that
contradicts that of an organized church

may be bound to follow 
precedent
, even when the precedent would represent
a hardship or injustice, jurors can focus on the case before them and strive to
do justice in that case.
A R R I V I N G   AT   A   V E R D I C T
Jury verdicts are the result of a deliberative and participatory form of
democracy. On a typical jury of twelve, where the selection process is nondis-
criminatory, one can expect to find persons with a diversity of backgrounds,
experiences, and perspectives. Ideally, a further screening process is applied so
that only those jurors who are able to be fair and impartial are chosen to sit. In
the jury room this open-mindedness, absence of bias, and wide range of per-
spectives combines to enable jurors to see the evidence from every possible
angle. According to English philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill
(1806–1873):
The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the
whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every
variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every
character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this;
nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.
(Mill 1910, p. 82)
Mill was not writing about decision making on the jury, but he easily could
have been. In the jury room, jurors, at the outset, apply their individualistic per-
spectives to the evidence to see which side’s story makes better sense in light
of their own experiences. Each juror’s analysis is then assessed, evaluated, and
critiqued by other jurors who may have a different take on events. If the jurors
are open- and fair-minded, they will be prepared to concede the inadequacy of
their own analysis when it has been shown to be flawed and to accept analyses
that are more compelling and persuasive.
Although the case in which a single holdout is ultimately able to convince
the others may be the apocryphal repository of fiction (e.g., the 1957 film
Twelve Angry Men), jurors in the minority play a critical role in the delibera-
tions. They force those in the majority to rethink and justify their analysis, they
act as a stimulant to group thinking, and they prevent an unseemly rush to judg-
ment. Likewise, in the jury room individualistic prejudices that may distort a
juror’s thinking are exposed by others who do not share the particular juror’s
biases. Subconscious prejudices either cancel each other out or are submerged
in a jury’s deliberations. As there are no time limits on deliberations, jurors can
persevere until all are satisfied that the right decision has been reached. It is in
these ways that the process of jury decision making promotes reflective and just
verdicts.
C H A L L E N G E S   T O   J U R I E S
Despite its many virtues, the jury process finds itself under attack.
Politicians are concerned about the financial and administrative costs of main-
taining a jury system and for this reason many countries, including England, no
longer employ juries in civil cases and in an ever-diminishing number of crimi-
nal trials. Economic issues aside, there are also concerns of principle. Despite
the numerous victories over discriminatory selection processes, minorities still
find themselves underrepresented on jury panels, a defect that is in glaring
contrast to the fact that minorities are statistically overrepresented among
criminal defendants.
38
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
J u r i e s
precedent: an established ruling, understand-
ing, or practice of the law
■ ■ ■  
T R I A L   B Y   J U R Y
■ ■ ■
Each jury is a little parliament. The
jury sense is the parliamentary
sense. I cannot see the one dying
and the other surviving. The first
object of any tyrant in Whitehall
would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and
the next to overthrow or diminish
trial by jury, for no tyrant could
afford to leave a subject’s freedom
in the hands of twelve of his coun-
trymen. So that trial by jury is more
than an instrument of justice and
more than one wheel of the
Constitution; it is the lamp that
shows that freedom lives. (Devlin
1956, p. 164)

What can be done to ensure the greater participation of minorities in the jury
system? What should be done about jurors, such as those who have their own
business to run, who seek excusal from service on hardship grounds? Their
absence, as well as that of persons disqualified by law from serving, detract from
the representativeness of the jury and the multiplicity of perspectives that is desir-
able for its deliberative processes to function effectively. How is the legal system
to preserve juror impartiality in high profile cases when potential jurors can access
news twenty-four hours per day from a wide variety of sources, including a largely
unregulated Internet? Do ordinary citizens have the capacity to understand cases
involving complex, specialized, or highly technical issues? In a multiracial, multi-
cultural society, can jurors ignore their defining traits and decide cases on their
merits; or, as some fear, will jurors identify with parties of the same background
as themselves and “hang” the jury regardless of the merits of the case?
These concerns do not make the case for discarding jury trial, but only
point out some of the challenges that lie ahead. Reforms may be needed, but
that is nothing new. Throughout its history, the institution of the jury has
adapted, evolved, survived, and prospered.
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
39
J u r i e s
JURY FOREMAN JOE COLLINS, RIGHT, SPEAKS AT THE JAMES BYRD JR. MURDER TRIAL.
In particular cases in the United States a death sen-
tence is permitted and the decision is left to the jury. In February 1999, a white supremacist named John William King was convicted
of kidnapping and murdering James Byrd Jr., an African American. The jury only took three hours of deliberating to find him guilty
of the hate crime and later imposed the penalty of death by lethal injection. 
(SOURCE: AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS)

See also: 
Judicial Independence; Judicial Review; Judicial Selection.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Alexander, J. A Brief Narration of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger. Boston:
Harvard University Press, 1963.
Chesterton, G. K. G. K. Chesterton: An Anthology [1909]. Compiled with introduction by
D. B. Wyndham Lewis. London: Oxford University Press, 1957.
Cornish, William. The Jury. London: Pelican Books, 1971.
Devlin, Patrick. Trial by Jury. London: Stevens, 1956.
Findlay, Mark, and Duff, Peter, eds. The Jury Under Attack. Sydney, Australia:
Butterworths, 1988.
Forsyth, William. The History of Trial by Jury, 2nd ed. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange,
1994.
Gobert, James. Justice, Democracy and the Jury. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/ Dartmouth,
1997.
Kalven, Harry, and Hans Zeisel. The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government [1859].
London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1910.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America[1835], trans. Phillips Bradley. New York:
Vintage Books, 1945.
Vidmar, Neil. World Jury Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.
James J. Gobert
40
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
J u r i e s

K
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan is a landlocked country located in Central Asia that is bordered
by Russia on the north, China on the east, Turkmenistan on the west, and
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan on the south. By size, it is the ninth-largest nation in
the world at 2.7 million square kilometers (1 million square miles).
As of July 2003, Kazakhstan’s population was estimated at 16.7 million. The
prominent ethnicities are Kazakh (56%) and Russian (28%). The major religions
are Sunni Muslim (47%) and Russian Orthodox (44%).
Kazakhstan, which had a nomadic tradition, was annexed by Russia in the
late nineteenth century. In 1917, secular nationalists briefly established an inde-
pendent national government which lasted from 1918 to 1920. The country
then rejoined Russia as the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, part
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ( USSR). After the fall of the Soviet
Union in the early 1990s, Kazakhstan declared full independence in December
1991 after a failed coup attempt in Moscow.
As Kazakhstan evolved from a communist Soviet republic, it developed an
authoritarian
form of government centered around the president, Nursultan
Nazarbayev ( b. 1940). Nazarbayev initially came to power in 1989 as the head of
the Kazakh Communist Party and was later elected president in 1991.
Formally, Kazakhstan is a constitutional republic. The constitution was
approved on August 30, 1995, by a national referendum. The president is the
highest-ranking state officer and is responsible for naming the government and
all other officials with the approval of the parliament. The president, who is
directly elected for a seven-year term, has a great deal of authority. He or she
may introduce or veto legislation and annul any existing law and is the only gov-
ernment official who can initiate constitutional amendments. The president
may dissolve parliament and order new parliamentary elections, as well as
declare states of emergency during which the constitution can be suspended. In
the absence of a parliament, the president rules by direct decree. The president
also controls the currency, appoints the constitutional court and other judges,
names the prosecutor general, and serves as the commander in chief.
■ ■ ■  
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
41
authoritarianism: the domination of the
state or its leader over individuals
■ ■ ■  

The legislative branch consists of a bicameral parliament consisting of the
upper house, the Senate, and the lower house, the majlis. The Senate has thir-
ty-nine members, and the majlis has seventy-seven members. All legislators serve
six-year terms. The parliament passes legislation and may override a presidential
veto. The Kazakhstan parliament may pass a vote of no-confidence, which dis-
bands the government. The parliament can remove the president from power
only in circumstances of sickness or treason.
The judicial branch of government is not independent of the executive
branch. It is susceptible to bribery and corruption is rampant.
Political parties have played little role in local politics, as the government has
imposed an increasing number of restrictions on them. The international
community has deemed previous elections as lacking in freedom and fairness.
Freedom of the press has been severely suppressed in Kazakhstan. The gov-
ernment has repeatedly harassed journalists, and many media outlets have been
shut down. It is also illegal for the press to criticize the president or the presi-
dential family. Freedom of religion is allowed for the most part, except for some
nontraditional faiths which are targets of government harassment. Religious
groups must register with the government to be recognized legally. In short,
Kazakhstan has an authoritative, nondemocratic government.
See also:
Ukraine.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Capisani, Giampaolo R. The Handbook of Central Asia: A Comprehensive Survey of the
New Republics. London: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 2000.
Freedom House. “Kazakhstan.” Freedom in the World 2004. New York: Freedom House, 2004.
Ͻhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/kazakhstan.htmϾ.
42
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
K a z a k h s t a n
U s t y u r t
P l a t e a u
Kazak  Uplands
Mt. Tengri
22,949 ft.
6995 m.
 Torghay
Plateau
Caspian
Depression
Betpak  Dala
Muyu
n Ku
m
T u
r a
L o
w
l a
n
d
R
yn
P
e
sk
i
KYRG
YZSKIY
KHREBET
ALT
AI M
TS.
Aral
Sea
Ozero
Tengiz
Ozero
Zaysan
Ozero
Alakol'
Balqash Köl
Z
h
ay
y
a
V
ol
ga
T
ob
ol
Ishim
Sy
r D
ar'y
a
Irt
ysh
Ili
Shu
Talas
Caspian
Sea
¯
Almaty
(Alma-Ata)
Shymkent
(Chimkent)
Qaraghandy
(Karaganda)
Omsk
Oskemen
Semey
Pavlodar
Zhambyl
Oral
(Ural'sk)
Aqtöbe
Orenburg
Orsk
Qostanay
Qyzylorda
Novokazalinsk
Aral'sk
Zhezqazghan
(Dzhezkazgan)
Karsakpay
Taldyqorghan
Zaysan
Astana
Rubtsovsk
Köshetau
Ekibastuz
Atyrau (Guryev)
Furmanovo
Aksay
Alga
Chelkar
Leninsk
(Tyuratam)
Saryshagan
Ayaguz
Burylbaytal
Kul'sary
Emba
Khromtau
Novyy Uzen'
Ft. Shevchenko
Rudnyy
Petropavl
(Petropavlovsky)
¯
C H I N A
R U S S I A
TURKMENISTAN
UZBEKISTAN
I R A N
AFGHANISTAN
TAJIKISTAN
KYRGYZSTAN
PAKISTAN
W
S
N
E
Kazakhstan
KAZAKHSTAN
500 Miles
0
0
500 Kilometers
250
375
125
250
125
375
(MAP BY MARYLAND CARTOGRAPHICS/ THE GALE GROUP)

“Kazakhstan.” CIA World Factbook. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2004.
Ͻhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kz.htmlϾ.
Olcott, Martha. Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, 2002.
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. “Kazakhstan.”
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2005. 
Ͻhttp://www.state.gov/
g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41689.htm
Ͼ.
Cara Richards
Kelsen, Hans
L E G A L   T H E O R I S T
1 8 8 1 – 1 9 7 3
Hans Kelsen was a legal theorist, best known for his writings on interna-
tional law and for his creation of the concept of a Constitutional Court. Kelsen
was born in Prague in 1881, but his Jewish, German-speaking family soon
moved to Vienna, Austria, where he completed his education through his
doctorate in law. His interests were always broad, encompassing the humanities
and classics, particularly philosophy. Early in his academic career, he became
interested in public law and was appointed as an instructor in public law and
philosophy of law at the University of Vienna, eventually rising to full professor
of public and administrative law.
Kelsen’s explorations in philosophy of law led him to reject the theory of
natural law and that of 
legal positivism
. Rather, he adopted a theory of law that
argued that the legitimacy of law relied on universal accepted truths. His signif-
icant contributions to how rights and responsibilities of citizens are defined
relied on his articulation of the hierarchy of laws and the primacy of the consti-
tution. In Europe in the early twentieth century, parliamentary sovereignty—the
notion that popular sovereignty was expressed through an elected parliament—
was counter to any suggestion that a law could be invalidated as contrary to the
constitution. In his book The General Theory of Law and State, he explained
that a country’s constitution is the ultimate source of law; it is a solemn docu-
ment that can be changed only with difficulty.
The Vienna in which Kelsen was raised was central to the Austro-Hungarian
Empire, but in 1918 Emperor Charles I (1887–1922) 
abdicated
, and the empire
was dismantled. The portion of that empire that became Austria held elections
in 1919, and a new republican constitution was required. Although Kelsen
was asked to serve as advisor to those writing the new constitution, the entire
document is generally agreed to be his handiwork.
Perhaps his most significant contribution was the institution of a
Constitutional Court, separated from the ordinary judiciary. He rejected the
system used in the United States, in which laws could be declared unconstitu-
tional by any court, even though the U.S. Supreme Court stood as the ultimate
arbiter. He argued for a special court that would be the only body that could
determine if a law passed by parliament was consistent with the higher law,
the constitution. Austria was the first country to establish a Constitutional
Court, and it served as the model for the post–World War II (1939–1945)
Constitutional Courts in Italy and Germany and later in Spain and the
European Union.