2007-05-15 05:14:03 · 9 answers · asked by twister 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
well the jury you have to convince 12 people, judge you have to convince one
2007-05-18 14:36:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best answer is that you would hope a trial of people in the general population will do what is right and come to the correct decision. When you deal with a trial by judge you risk the judge being much more biased or potential corrupt. The type of trial is also of importance. Business vs Business oriented trials sometimes are less expensive to go through when a Judge or Arbiter is used. But when its Business vs a Person or the State vs a Person a jury trial in my view would be the best just for the heart factor.
As for the Tony Soprano answer its easier to buy a juror than a judge or DA. Good luck!
2007-05-15 12:34:25 · answer #2 · answered by loki11467 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The jury only judges guilt or a verdict of not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge. The jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while the judge determines the law.Juries serve as an important check against state power.
Jury provides a more sympathetic hearing and a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government than would representatives of the state would do.
2007-05-15 12:25:17 · answer #3 · answered by V.T.Venkataram 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this for a grade?
The advantages are that several people are deliberating over your fate. You could get a sympathetic jury who will not "hang" you, or you could get a jury with that one person who refuses to convict, and therefore you end up with a hung jury.
Disadvantage: You have a bunch of people who do not really truly understand the law, but are sitting there listening to a couple of actors with law degrees trying to convince them that their side is the right side, waiting to determine your fate as a defendant.
2007-05-15 12:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by Kathryn P 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jury trials take lots of time and are very costly. The jurors must be compensated (though it is minimal at best). Also, jurors frequently do not follow the law but decide a case because they like or dislike an individual.
However, I am personally in favor of jury trials. Those just happen to be the arguments against them.
2007-05-15 12:19:42 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is criminal case and you are guilty, you need to think about if you can provide enough reasonable doubt. If you are innocent, but you can not prove that you are innocent a jury would probably hang you.
If it is a civil case, it depends on your damages, nowadays you need to prove that your damages are high, people of a jury are not real generous if they feel a lawsuit is frivilous and you should just get over it. In a civil case most of the time it is best to settle through mediation, a trial is very expensive.
2007-05-15 12:24:02 · answer #6 · answered by Lori B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I were an innocent man, I'd rather go up in front of 3 judges. If I were a guilty man, I'd want the jury.
2007-05-15 12:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by Gary W 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Advantages: peers, rather then appointed persons, decide your fate.
disadvantages: Peers, rather then experts, who are too stupid to get out of jury duty, decide your fate.
2007-05-15 12:18:08 · answer #8 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Twelve people can be wrong instead of just one
2007-05-15 12:18:38 · answer #9 · answered by mar m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋