what's your idea about the jury system on trial?

Question

Is it realy necessary ?what are the pros and cons?

Answer 1

This is a good an argument against juries as I've ever seen:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml

Answer 2

The jury system dates back to the Magna Carta and its basis is being tried by a panel who represent your peers but I wonder how often that really happens when the jurors are chosen at random, especially in today's diverse society?

Most juries are most often used in Crown Court so they are used to pass verdict on the most serious cases such as assualt, robbery and murder. As someone has already said, because there are 12 people and it has to be unanimous I think it is a fairer system than the magistrates courts where one Judge or a bench of magistrates can decide your fate. In the UK, judges and magistrates (in my experience) tend to be predominantly mature, white middle class men. I think using a jury is necessary to ensure that the verdict is as fair as possible. Also, members of the jury are not told about a defendants previous convictions until a verdict has been passed so they will not be prejudiced by it.

Some of the drawback are that it is time-consuming, a huge public cost and personal predjudices cannot be eradicated altogether.

Answer 3

It is the fairest system, as twelve people from all walks of life who have nothing to do with the case, and don't know anyone else who does, listen to the evidence and judge for themselves.

Answer 4

It's great, except that it's become messed up. Sensible jurors are weeded out by scummy attorneys, and the ones that are kept are ill-informed of their rights and responsibilities.

Answer 5

very good th e odds are in your favor dependibng on the jury