Final answer:
Jurors are seen as qualified to recommend compensatory and punitive damages in federal civil cases due to the Seventh Amendment, while judges focus on legal interpretation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Whether jurors are qualified to determine the amount of compensatory and punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff is a nuanced issue. The Seventh Amendment ensures a jury trial in federal civil cases, allowing jurors to recommend damages. This is rooted in the principle that jurors, as peers of the plaintiff and defendant, may deliver a verdict that aligns with societal expectations rather than the strict letter of the law. Judges, on the other hand, may focus primarily on legal precedents and statutory limits when determining damages.
Jurors are considered appropriate for deciding questions of fact, including the assessment of damages, while judges are viewed as interpreters of the law. This distinction maintains the balance of responsibilities within the judicial system. Moreover, the impartiality of jurors is crucial, and both the prosecution and defense have the right to remove potential jurors who may harbor biases that could affect a fair trial.
In essence, jurors and judges play distinct yet complementary roles in the legal process. While the practice of jurors recommending damages in civil cases is an established part of the common law tradition, it is acknowledged that there may also be merit to a judge determining damages in certain scenarios, such as technical cases requiring specific expertise or in the interest of reducing the influence of emotion and bias on the decision.