In a court case where there is trial by jury, If the criminal is found guilty? Do you think that the jury?

Question

Should impose the sentence and the judge should be there just to give legal guidance ?

Answer 1

No. To do so would create a situation in which juries - which change with each case - give widely different sentences for the same crime.

What makes our system work well is that the jury decides guilt or innocence, and then the judge, who handles many cases, can issue a similar sentence for a specific crime to the sentence for others who have committed the same crime. The judge also is in a better position to make the decision as to whether there is anything special about a particular case that should lead to an upward or downward modification from the average sentence for the crime.

Answer 2

The jury does impose sentences. For first degree or capital murder, the jury decides life or death. In cases where the crime invoves a jail sentence, the judge explaines the sentences and possible convictions to the jury. Eg. the jury can convict on simple assault and find not guitly on aggrivated assualt, thus giving a lighter sentence. To have no sentence restrictions and only jury decisions on punishment would amount to chaos. Eg. two rape cases are heard by juries. Both rapists are convicted. In one case the jury decides on a sentence of 1 year. In the second case, the jury decides on a sentence of 20 years. That cannot work.

Answer 3

Hell no!
I did jury service a few years ago and I can honestly say some of the people there were not fit to decide what to wear in the morning, never mind impose a sentence.
These things need to be left to the professionals, with the Court of Appeal for backup when they slip up.

Answer 4

Whats the point...the sentences are prescribed by statuted and to have the jury debate it would waste time...lets say a crime has a sentence range from 5 to 10 years.....the jury would have people to argue almost every number in between.

The judge would just save time by picking a number his training and expriance has taught him is proper.

Answer 5

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. I think that if the legal system feels that the jurors are worthy to be jurors in the first place, then they should have a say in the sentencing. They would have had to sit and listen to all the details, some of which would be terrible and they would have an unbiased opinion because their decision would be made based on the facts.

Answer 6

No - they are in no way qualified to determine sentences, unless you get the rare, rare occasion permissible in E+W law where everyone of age and sound mind is elligible for jury service...and you get a judge on the jury!

Answer 7

Yes because many judges do not truly recognize your right to a trial by jury as they have lost sight of there impartiality and take it personally and give you the maximum just because you did so. Also, judges have no one policing their ranks. I once had a judge tell me (and I quote) "You will find Mr. ******** that you will pay a heavy price for not accepting a plea bargain offered in MY court. The plea bargain process should be outlawed.

Answer 8

I think the entire judicial system is so corrupt that no one should ever be subject to such hypocrisy, therefore citizens should be there own judge and jury... Would you appreciate a dramatic drop in crime? Then consider my words.

Answer 9

Takes long enough to get 12 or 15 people to agree on a verdict. Would take a hell of a lot longer if they had to agree on a sentence as well.

Answer 10

If your toilet was broken, would you ask the opinion of twelve random people on the street what the best way of fixing it would be? Wouldn't you rather have a trained professional do it, or at least advise you?
Why then do you want twelve morons deciding on law and sentencing when none of them have the foggiest about the intricacies of law?!?