what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a jury panel?

Answer 1

Most litigator attorneys prefer juries because they can be influenced by appeals to emotion, and by subtle argument.

In the USA jury trials are guaranteed by the Constitution. In England they exist in civil trials only for libel actions, and in criminal trials conviction may be by majority, not unanimous, vote in many or most cases.

But it is argued in Britain that many matters -- especially white collar crimes, and more specifically financial fraud cases -- are too complex for juries and numerous high profile British prosecutions have indeed collapsed.

In the USA that is not generally the case, and as you know there were convictions in the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Martha Stewart and hundreds of other prosecutions.

The whole point of juries was to bring local knowledge and local standards to bear in the resolution of cases. The role of the jury narrowed later to simple fact-finding based on arcane trial procedural rules. In the UK, which has no written constitution other than those rules imposed by EU and European Convention on Human Rights law, there was recently enacted a law that permits retrial of acquitted defendants in certain "serious" cases. (Double jeopardy exists in the USA too sometimes, but only when the second trial is by a different sovereign, usually by the federal government after a state court acquittal.)

There is a good deal of cynicism about juries: the OJ Simpson trial is an example. Juries rarely understand the concept of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and the number of wrongful convictions -- now proven by DNA, but even earlier researched and written about (in England) by Bob Woffinden -- is sad testimony to the fallibility of juries and the cynicism of prosecutors.

It goes back to the declaration of Justice Olliver Wendell Holmes to Learned Hand about his job not being to "do justice" but to play the game by the rules: http://snurl.com/learned

Answer 2

The advantage of having a jury selected at random from a pool of jurors would seem to be that you get to be tried by a panel of your peers.

The main disadvantage, in England anyway, would sem to be that, in any trial that is likely to go on for a while, which applies to most "serious" offences, the intelligent jurors find really "good" reasons why they should not have their time taken up by the process, and don't serve on the jury because the judge lets them go. The result is that the defendant gets tried by the less bright members of the panel, who often can't tell black from white - one of the reasons (there are many, but it is one) that we get so many appeals.

Answer 3

The advantages are a jury reflects the common man. It is made up of citizens who sit and listen and decide. It allows for the people to actively participate in the judicial system.

The disadvantages are summed up in two letters: O J. A jury afraid to render a proper vertict because of race. To be honest, if I was a black person on that jury, I might have been afraid to do the right thing and send OJ Simpson to jail forever. But they knew they couldn't ever go back to their predominately black neighborhoods if they tossed his guilt butt in jail.

Answer 4

It is like going to Las Vegas and rolling the dice. If your attorney, like in OJ Simpson, can pull off miracles, and you have a good solid case, the jury may not like the way you look, or dress, etc. Get the picture? You are at the mercy of the jury. In the OJ case, the jury was not going to convict him no matter what, they were mostly black women. The advantage would be if the jury is picked right, you will have a good chance of getting off. Plea bargaining sometimes is the only way to go, if you do not want to get up in front of a jury. If you were accused of touching a little 12 yr old girl, no matter what, you are fried, and you better go get a plea bargaining, it is sad as you are saying you did it, and regardless if you did or not, you will not have to go to jail, just take the plea bargain, register as a sex offender. Otherwise, you get up in front of a jury, your *** is fried, and you could go to jail. So, it is up to fate. if you go in front of a jury and you do not look like an angel, they will get you no matter what is said. You really have to rely on your attorney, but if you plea bargain, you do not have to pay an attorney, and you just take the smaller medicine and go on your way. It is risky business, but who wants to register as a sex offender? It may not be a violent one, but they do not care, you are thrown in the barrel. How do I know, it happened to a relative of mine, and the parent wanted to sue to get money, and the only way they could, is take it to court and get a conviction. The judicial system is very tricky, and once you get into it, you better look like a little saint, and have one heck of an attorney, plus a lot of money, unless you are represented by a prosecutor, state assigned. In the OJ trial, they had blood evidence, they had DNA, they had everything, but yet he walked. Thank you to the judge who was an idiot, the prosecutors let OJ try on a glove that would never fit, as it has dried up from blood and also had another cotton glove under it to protect the evidence. Did they know, it would fit, no, stupid. That lost the case. Good luck.

Answer 5

In some countries, judges decide guilt and innocence instead of juries -- but judges are agents of the government, and there's no way (at least not in America) should we grant judges such awesome power.

Such power can easily be abused for political reasons -- a vocal opponent of the government, for instance, could be sent to prison by a judge even if he/she is innocent.

Having a jury system virtually eliminates that possibility.

.

Answer 6

An advantage is that you get a cross-section of society, your peers if you will, to hear your case and give a verdict.

A disadvantage is that they're not legal professionals and can be swayed by charming, slick lawyers and emotion instead of facts.

Answer 7

advantage - an objective assessment of the evidence where a decision mad that disregards self interest, poliicy and politics

disadvantage - they frequently misunderstand and misinterpret the law