A new debate has erupted in Spain over how effective trial by jury really is. The controversy was sparked by news that the case involving Begoña Gómez, the wife of the Prime Minister, might be handled not by professional judges but by ordinary citizens. This decision has stirred intense discussion among lawyers and the public, as it concerns a high-profile trial that puts not only an individual’s fate at stake, but also the country’s trust in its judicial system.
Many are asking: can nine randomly selected people without legal training deliver an objective verdict in a complex case? Supporters of jury trials insist that the law includes mechanisms to minimize bias and mistakes. For example, candidates are carefully screened, and the judge formulates the questions they must answer. In addition, jurors are required to explain why they reached their decision, which makes it easier to scrutinize their reasoning.
However, critics argue that in cases involving complex economic schemes or corruption, it is nearly impossible to understand the issues without specialized training. They compare it to treating a serious illness not by going to a doctor but by consulting a folk healer. In their view, professional judges have a better grasp of impartiality and are accountable for their rulings—unlike jurors, who face no consequences for mistakes.
The history of jury trials in Spain dates back to the 1978 Constitution, but the system only became truly operational in 1995. At that time, its introduction was supported by left-wing parties and nationalists, while conservatives remained skeptical. Since then, juries have handled cases involving murder, corruption, abuse of power, and a range of other crimes. However, whenever a high-profile case emerges—like the current situation with Begoña Gómez—debates over the need to reform or even abolish the jury system flare up once again.
Supporters of jury trials emphasize that citizen participation in justice is a vital part of democracy. They argue that even if a case is complicated, judges and prosecutors can explain the charges in plain language. Opponents, however, insist there are too many risks, especially in cases where media pressure and public opinion might influence the verdict. Some experts suggest allowing prosecutors to request that particularly complex cases be transferred to professional judges to avoid errors.
Statistics show that the number of jury trials in Spain has fluctuated over time. In the late 1990s, there were nearly 800 cases a year, but the figure dropped sharply afterwards due to mistrust in this system. Now, there are about 350 such cases annually, and debates about their effectiveness persist. The future of jury trials is once again under scrutiny, and it seems there is still no definitive answer.
