2007-10-06 07:02:39 · 17 answers · asked by speedspread 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Absolutely. It's fair. Trial by jury, sentenced by a group of your peers.
2007-10-06 07:06:41 · answer #1 · answered by StangGirl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely yes. It is the only way to get an independent fair result. Just imagine if one person could summarily decide someone was guilty, even though when presented the evidence was clearly proving that same persons innocence. Imagine the damage one individual could do if they were on a campaign against people accused of committing one specific crime! I would rather face a jury of my peers than one vigilante!
2007-10-06 07:19:33 · answer #2 · answered by dozyllama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think I would elect for a Judge alone trial if I were ever charged. The Judge knows the law and is under strict rules to only apply law and not personal opinion. I think you should be allowed to elect a jury trial if you wish but I think many err in thinking that it is beneficial.
And, FYI, neither juries or judges decide innocence...no one is ever found innocent...merely not guilty.
2007-10-06 07:12:56 · answer #3 · answered by elysialaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well it's worked for thousands of years in several different eras and cultures, so it must be working right
Having a different jury every time is the only way of making sure it's a fair trial, to make sure theres a broad selection of opinions from different backgrounds, instead of only being made up of people that have been to university. If it was left to professionals, theres bound to be corruption and biased opinions amongst them.
2007-10-06 07:14:34 · answer #4 · answered by KooKoo Moolookoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They don't decide guilt or innocence. They decide whether on the basis of the evidence before them there is no doubt whatsoever in their minds that the accused is guilty of the offence. This does not mean that they find him innocent. There is a subtle, but nevertheless important, distinction.
2007-10-06 10:21:53 · answer #5 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's fair that a "jury of your peers" consists of people who are randomly selected, then the lawyers get to weed out the ones that they believe will hinder their case. They should either leave that last part out, or get a group of judges to hear the case and decide.
2007-10-06 07:30:04 · answer #6 · answered by muchluv4pets 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Its not perfect but its the best available
I just wish the judge would NOT sum up before the jury have retired for verdict. Then there would be no influence on them
2007-10-06 07:16:20 · answer #7 · answered by stormydays 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is the main protection of you and me. the juries usually have little more common sense than the judiciary is allowed or the barrister for the prosecution finds comfortable.
I've never been before one or indeed before the Court (except as part of my job) and hope that I never am
2007-10-06 07:54:37 · answer #8 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,,I have never thought the jury system is any good,,,,You are surrounded by the informed and learned and it is given to 12 people who you have to trust actually give a damn to decide someones fate,,,better to allow it to be decided by a panel of judges
2007-10-06 07:08:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You should have to pass some kind of test to qualify to sit on a jury.
2007-10-06 07:10:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋