{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027855153203342618, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.23121387283237, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The schizophrenic jury and other palladia of liberty: a critical historical analysis

The historiography of the jury is interestingly schizophrenic, even paradoxical. On one side is the once traditional, and still popular, history of the jury as palladium of liberty. On the other side is the once revisionist, but now widely accepted, account of the jury's origin as instrument of oppression. On one side is the jury as English, local, indigenous, democratic; on the other is the jury as French, central, foreign, autocratic. This paper reflects on this apparent paradox, regarding it as neither sui generis nor in need of resolution. Instead, from the longue durée comparative-historical perspective of New Historical Jurisprudence, the schizophrenic history of the jury and of other palladia of liberty, notably habeas corpus, can be seen to reflect the fundamental and long-standing tension between two modes of governance, law and police, rooted in the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy that has shaped the Western legal-political project since classical Athens.