in a civil case?
2007-03-14 17:52:24 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
well ok lets see how do i put this i need to put this in an essay why is a jury better than just a judge?
2007-03-14 18:04:44 · update #1
A judge is generally more familiar with law than a jury. The chances of you getting a jury filled with law experts is pretty slim, at the very least. A jury can be more easily swayed by emotional testimony or confused with twisting of facts.
2007-03-14 18:00:17 · answer #1 · answered by ophelliaz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no pro or con per se. It would depend on if the judge is liberal or conservative.
However, I would prefer a jury, since 12 (or 8) people, would provide you with a larger and diverse group of people, who may be sympathetic to the plaintiff.
2007-03-14 17:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by stevebumbar 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The judge has legal training and presumably knows the law. (S)he probably won't be swayed by an emotional argument. If you're the plaintiff, most of that is good for you, but if you're the defendant, most of it's bad for you, but you can get a jury which may cost you.
2007-03-14 18:06:43 · answer #3 · answered by jelesais2000 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Criminal lawyers say If you're innocent get a judge, if you're guilty get a jury.
2007-03-14 17:58:22 · answer #4 · answered by October 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have one person decide your fate rather than a group of people where a majority is needed.
2007-03-14 17:57:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋