JURATS. - So called from the oath by which they bind themselves to the upright discharge of their office, jurors are a body of citizens belonging to categories listed by law, possessing special cultural and moral qualities, called upon to judge, in a criminal case, the guilt or innocence of the accused and consequently to cooperate in the administration of criminal justice.
The characteristic proper to the body of jurors is that it is composed of elements drawn from every class of citizens, in deference to the principle maintained by penalists that, whereas in seeking the proofs of a crime skill and dexterity are required, in judging the result, by contrast, simple ordinary good sense is required, which is at times less fallible than the knowledge of a judge accustomed to a forma mentis that is the fruit only of abstract studies.
The institution of jurors is of English origin, adopted by the French Constituent Assembly, and subsequently spread throughout Europe. Canon law has never admitted the institution of jurors, so as not to divide the task of judging. In Italy, by the law of 13 Nov. 1859, the Courts of Assize with the jury were instituted.
Jurors therefore form part of the judging panel, but without the juridical power to give the sentence or to inflict the penalty. They can only pronounce on the existence of the fact and on the guilt of the accused. This is the task imposed upon them by positive law. In carrying it out they must keep in mind other principles of a moral order.
First of all, the answer to the questions must be given by the jurors on the basis of an intimate and conscientious conviction, whereby jurors cannot and must not condemn an innocent person even if all appearances accuse him. On the contrary, they may, in conscience, answer in favor of the true culprit when his guilt has not been legitimately and properly demonstrated. The case is an exception in which the public good demanded the condemnation of some guilty person; then, however, the jurors should testify in the trial not as such, but as witnesses (cf. A. Ballerini-D. Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale, IV, 3rd ed., Prato 1900, n. 592).
Similarly, if a person who enjoys the privilege of the forum were abusively summoned before a secular tribunal (cf. CIC, cann. 120, 614, 680), the jurors, should they be unable to withdraw from judging, can always cast their vote in favor of the accused, inasmuch as he is subject to an incompetent tribunal (cf. A. Ballerini-D. Palmieri, op. cit., n. 591).
Should a citizen, called to the office of juror, remain hesitant because of the consciousness of his own ignorance in matters of law, moral doctrine does not absolutely impose upon him to excuse himself, provided however that he has the resolve not to condemn anyone unless the guilt is evidently established. Natural law indeed does not require that all delinquents be punished, but it does will that no innocent person be condemned (cf. A. Ballerini-D. Palmieri, op. cit., n. 591).
The institution of jurors, which had been abolished in Italy with the penal and criminal procedure codes of 1931, was in part restored by lieutenant legislative decrees of 6 Aug. 1944, n. 170 and 5 Dec. 1944, n. 290, with the institution of popular judges. The definitive organization of the courts of Assize is currently under discussion before Parliament.