what are the advantages of having a trial by jury?

Answer 1

Self evident if you draw Franz Kafka as a judge.

Answer 2

Much of what the others said is highly accurate. The single largest advantage is exactly the point made above that 12 minds have 12 histories and they must reach a concensus. The other realistic advantage is what another said, the 12 are far more likely to be like the accused than the judge who has been largely removed from what I call a "real life" for some time (i.e. - worrying about gas and grocery money, etc.).

The disadvantage of a jury trial is that, in a conservative area, the jury members can be too trusting of a police officer/security officer as being infallible in their perceptions or memory. On the flip side, if the state's primary witness is a no-good sonofagun who has been to court far more than the present accused, the judge will know that and the jury won't, thereby making the judge more likely to believe the accused than the "victim." (to buttress anyone with misconceptions, it is not always possible to get the "victim's" record heard by the jury.) The judges know the fallibilities of the system, sometimes making them better factfinders for a trial, but largely a jury is the way to go.

Answer 3

If you have a case of the defendant being on trial for a really bad law, say one with a mandatory 30 year sentence for littering, you have the opportunity to have the judge decide that the law is unconstitutional and toss the charges out. If that doesn't happen, you get a second chance for the same thing with a jury refusing to convict simply because they don't think what the defendant did should be a crime in the first place.

It's called "jury nullification".

Answer 4

Having decided that two weeks jury duty didn't sound too bad I went along with the system and had two weeks free from the office. First day I was told by an court usher that wearing a collar and tie and carrying a newspaper like the Telegraph as opposed to the Sun was almost a dead cert to ensure non selection for jury duty. I tried it and it worked for me. Jury trial is the one for me since most of my fellow would be jurors had as much interest in the system as Mickey Mouse.

Answer 5

A trial by jury is advantageous because there is a group of people who decides what is right for the case unlike when the decision is made by a judge who can be swayed or influenced by many factors.

Answer 6

The main advantage is: in case the judge is biased, the case still does not go the wrong way.

Also, the jurors may not have specific precedent cases in mind, and are therefore in a better position to decide whether or not the allegations are highly probable or not. They also have the advantage of being able to discuss things with one another, and sharing the responsibility (and the risk of reprisals by the criminal)
among more people. And they are less likely to be fed up by how many people apart from this one seem to have committed such crimes / the jurors will not know the CPS person, the barrister and the policeman by name from previous cases, and can therefore act as impartial decision makers.

The main disadvantage is that they are not legal specialists, and can therefore be misled about how solid the evidence is (or personal biases could be stronger, potentially), or they may not understand the difference between manslaughter and accidental murder, and such matters as well.

Answer 7

It was mentioned lightly but when it comes to your own trial it had better be taken seriously.The part about jury members being to dumb to get out of jury duty is correct.It is unbelieveable how dumb some of this people are.Juries are very keen on looks and that is the first thing they go by. Evidence or lack of evidence is secondary.

Answer 8

Human justice needs to be decided by humans. We aren't casting lots or consulting runes here, we're trying to figure out what happened, and some person or group of people needs to make that call.

The problem is that people are subject to biases and prejudices. Everyone is. That's unavoidable. The best way to compensate for that is to get a sufficiently large group of people that any individual biases/prejudices are averaged out across the group. A jury of one will be influenced entirely by that one person's perspective. A jury of twelve needs to reach some kind of consensus, and the theory is that a group is less likely to be carried away by individual irrationalities.

Answer 9

So you can not be judged by someone who has an advanced education, critical thinking skills, and high intelligence (a judge).
Instead, you get to be judged by a jury of 12 people who were too dumb to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
If you are the defendant, then the jury is the way to go.

Answer 10

If you wish to learn to end any kind of violence the you should have this system of Bruce Perry, Patriot Self Defense , a program that you merely will get it here https://tr.im/VdrUI
Patriot Self Defense can educate you on a highly efficient self-defense process that is been field-tested in homes, at government activities and on some of the meanest roads in the world against the most callous, clever and harmful criminal.
With Patriot Self Defense you may find out that's easier you then estimated to defend your self since you do not need to be a professional or have energy, you only have to know how to do certain techniques, simple movements but deathly.

Answer 11

The advantage or disadvantage is, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty