What's the importance of a jury?

Question

Doing a school project...kinda lost? First good answer=best answer!! Please && thank you!

Answer 1

there are 12 people on a jury, and they help the jusdge to make an unbiased desciion...it is important that no member of the jusy has any link to the accused or the victum. If they do, then it is considered a hung juy or something. members of the jury are normal people, and anyone can be called to be on a jury. it is their civil duty. I heard that on the radio.
hope that helps a tad.

Answer 2

The jury is supposed to be an unbiased group of citizens that can hear both sides of the case and, following the judges instructions, come to a fair decision in the case. Typically, the jury is supposed to decide issues of fact about the case while the judge decides issues of law. The jury is called the finders of fact. That means that both sides of the case present their respective versions of what actually happened. Typically, these two versions do not agree with each other, in fact they may be polar opposites. The attorneys present to the jury the facts in the best light possible for their client. My experience has been that both sides are lying to the court, or at least not telling the whole truth because that would not do their client any favors to tell the whole truth. As a result, the jury has to decide who is telling the truth. Again, my experience has been that the side that can present the most convincing story without being proven wrong, caught in a lie, will win the case.
Supposedly, the jury will give the accused a better, more sympathetic hearing than the jaded judges would by themselves.
In reality, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
For my part, I have been able to settle my cases before going to a jury trial. I present a realistic solution to the opposing counsel and to the judge in his chambers and have successfully negotiated settlements with the people in the know without having to resort to people that are definitely outside the loop. I prefer it that way.

Answer 3

Aside from the Constitutional requirements, the importance of a jury is a highly questionable issue with many books written on it. I highly recommend hunting down some of said books and/or articles in legal publications.

The pro: A judge is one man. Typically, he hears the same lawyers on a number of different cases and the same stories by any number of defendants, prosecutors, and plaintiffs. He's got inside information that makes him better able to figure out what really happened, but there is in appearance a much greater chance of his becoming jaded and making mistakes. A jury is a group of people who know squat. But because they're so clueless both sides can present the information to them without worrying about their pre-conceived notions. There is a better chance that a majority of people in a small group will make a better decision than one man and definitely better than a public vote.

The Cons: Realistically, everything in the "Pro" section is BS. It works in appearance only. As mentioned, juries don't know squat. Worse, more and more they THINK they know things, which is even worse. Some people feel that a lawyer is one thing, but that you should never put a law student on a jury because they THINK they know the law, whereas a lawyer understands that he doesn't. Similarly, there have been juries that have let some of the biggest white collar criminals off the hook because there was no CSI style forensic evidence... but its white collar crime, so why exactly would you need bloody finger prints? Juries are dumb. They use group think, follow the strongest personality, get led around by their insecurities and biases and generally just foul up what should be a system of justice.

The alternative:
- Let judges make their decisions, they're informed, they're generally not biased and, except for the appearance of imporpriety that might develop in the view of the general public, its actually more successful (see the chancery court in delaware).
- Professional juries: this is highly debated subject in and of itself.
-Anarchy.
-Coin flips.

Answer 4

The key is that the jury consists of a group of peers.

Some sites with info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

Answer 5

1) trial by your peers, vs. hired mercenary people that may not care about you and your case
2) a number of people, usually 5-12, so that you are not subject to the whims of just one person, who might be untrained
3) debate about the verdict and sentencing, again allowing multiple viewpoints and opinions vs. a set sentencing mechanism

good luck!