what are the advantages of having trials by jury in our criminal justice system?

Answer 1

The idea behind the jury system in criminal cases is that the accused has committed a crime against the the state, or society. That is why criminal law is public law and cases are cited as r v defendant name (the r, standing for the Crown) in Australia. As such, it is only fair the the verdict in crimes against society are determined by members of the society.

The jury system allows (well at least theoretically) a cross-section of the community to decide the verdict. As such, in determining the verdict a variety of values, which are relevant to the community are considered. If, for instance, verdicts were delivered by a judge, only one individuals' perspective will be considered. Judge's, despite recent attempts to change this, also come from a very narrow socio-economic background. Studies show that in Australia over 90% of judges in the County and Supreme Courts around the country, are aged over 50, male and from an Anglo-Saxon background. As such a judge's view would be very different from an 18 year old female student, or a 45 year old migrant.

To the contrary though, and as stated by various other posters, this system has been heavily criticised as jury's often don't comprise a cross-selection of the community. For instance, barristers are allowed preemptory challenges on jury members, so in a rape case involving a young women, the barrister for the defence would often challenge any individual who may seem to identify with the victim. People who work in the legal field are also often exempt from jury duty, as are people who can prove that they would be disadvantaged by serving, such as a single parent, a student or a shift worker.

The other major ciriticism is that jurors don't always have the capacity to understand complex evidence such as DNA. As such, if they do not understand the evidence they are unable to provide an informed decision. As a result many reforms to the jury system have been suggested and discussed in recent years.

Answer 2

It depends on the facts of the case. Some cases if you were a defendant you would not want a jury trial. If the crime you are charged with is so looked down on by the community, or you have such a bad record/background you might want to forgo the jury and have a judge who can more easily put those issues aside, since they see it all the time.

But if you are a sympathetic sort, the state has a complex case, or it is crime that the community does not take as seriously you are better off with a jury because they will ignore the law and go with their gut more so than a judge will.

So, you have the weigh the factors of your case and decide which is better for you. Also, in some regions it is really hard to be acquitted by a jury, and in others it is hard to be convicted. You have to really analyze your particular situation to decide which is best for you.

Also lets clarify some myths. Judges do not work for the State. In fact, judges and the law tend to be harder on the state prosecutors (however this can vary by region). It is rare for a judge to be bought. It is more common for a juror to poison the jury pool then it is for a judge to be corrupt.

Most people are not railroaded in any way. People who think the innocent get convicted at a great rate have very little knowledge of how the system really works. The fact is that only 70% of trials reach conviction in the States with the highest conviction rates, others are as low as 60%. The vast majority of people plead guilty way before trial, or on the eve of trial. Lastly, the percentages of actual innocent people that are convicted are mind blowing low less than 1%. And that is usually attributed to corrupt cops, not the justice system. But if you listen to inmates they were all wrongfully convicted.

Answer 3

Conceivably it allows you to be tried by a jury of your peers. Therefore, you are hypothetically being judged by people just like you and can avoid the issues that may arise from being judged by one person who may be influenced by outside forces or opposed to you on the basis of your class etc. This arose out of the English adversarial and Common law system where aristocrats would have to answer for their crimes to a panel of aristocrats and commoners to commoners. In some jurisdictions you can waive your right to a jury trial and instead have a "bench trial" where the judge decides your innocence or guilt. The system isn't perfect but it really is the best available since the defendant is at the mercy of a group of their peers and not one single individual. For a history of jury trials and some context try this link http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/jury.htm

Answer 4

King's will was arbitrary justice. The interests of the accused or accuser were irrelevant.

From our Anglo Saxon and Roman backgrounds we have codified the laws. The Anglo Saxons in particular had a tradition of popular government at the base level being through the Woden. From this came the perception of judgements on civic and responsibility being determined by the people affected.

The Norman invaders brought with them a similar but more stratified idea that people should be judged by others of their own status. Thus was introduced "judgement by one's peers".

The rational became accepted that accusations and the defence of those allegations could best be made by people who knew generally the circumstances in which things happened.

Over years these things happened. Fewer claimed "privilege" in respect to higher peer status. Police Forces were formed to apprehend lawbreakers. People were given the right to by pass Magistrates and Judges to have a fair trial by twelve citizens (effectively "peers" because we are now they say equal before the law).

The Code de la Napoleon which most of the non British World tries to be fair by having every accused person protected by a lawyer who does their best to convince the Judge of their client's innocence.

I have barrister friends who have expressed astonishment at how well just twelve people off the street can make such intelligent decisions that they do.

I believe that it is more easy to bribe a judge than all twelve of a jury. I believe that our system gives more respect to our citizens. I have more trust in the decisions of free men and women than I do in Judges who could easily become cynical. Juries keep Judges honest.

Answer 5

Juries, being a group of individuals, are much more likely to look beyond the law to give the accused some slack. If you're a criminal and desperate for a break, better go with a jury if you have an ounce of sympathy to offer.

Answer 6

The advantages are huge, even though they also can cause problems. by having a group of people from your community who have lived in the general same circumstances that you have, you receive a much fairer verdict.
What is the judge had a bad morning, his kid yelled at him, his dog died, and his brother ran off with his wife. By having a jury trial, you are not having your guilt or innocence decided by just one person.
What if he hates blacks/Jews/whatever, and you happen to be one. With trial by Jury, your lawyer can try to guarantee that their is a fair representation of your "type" of people.
It is also much harder to bribe a group of people that it is an individual. Corruption becomes much harder in a situation where there are many people from your area, than from one person who may not even know anything about your town.
Judges also used to travel from town to town, before they became so prevalent in our society, having a jury ensured you got a better chance at justice.

Answer 7

The advantages are many....Most often judges can be bought...So if there's a trial in which,say,10 jurors are involved,atleast 2 or 3 among them may have guts to pronounce the right verdict....so there's a lesser possibility of a criminal getting free...

Answer 8

It used to be that juries were supposed to be the defendants protection against the crown.
Now the US 'justice' system has perverted that and uses the juries to screw the defendants, and that's why so many innocent people get railroaded into prisons.
99.99 percent of jurors only know what they are supposed to know from the judge, and he is on the 'other' side.

Answer 9

It allows average people to be outwitted by attorneys that are far more intelligent than them. It's smoke and mirrors, and puts justice in the hands of the plebians, the vulgus, rather than in the hands of trained thinkers.

Answer 10

Hello,
To know exactly what a person did in his life, you should check this amazing service http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=564
Cheers ;)