Do we really need juries for civil trials?

Question

Irealize that some civil trials do not have juries, but is having a jury for civil trials a good use of jurors? If jurors were used only in criminal proceedings, would we have to go to jury duty so often? Would judges be more or less fair in the amounts of money they would award?

Answer 1

Juries are the best method.  Both sides get to pick persons who they think will be favorable.  Juries can be persuaded.  Judges are picked at random.  Judges usually are not persuaded.  They are too wrapped up in seeing that the trial is conducted properly.

Answer 2

Juries are there to make sure the "small guy"  has a voice. Sometimes, big business believe they can do anything. Most of the times,  the awards fit the severity of the crime.

Answer 3

Judges can be corrupt.  The judge that handled my probate of my father's estate later went to jail for something he did.  Juries are an insurance policy for fairness in the courts.  It isn't foolproof, but it's the best we can do.

Answer 4

Depends on what the crimes are if armed robbery a designing of citizen based cash and ATMS on streets precludes armed robberies hence trials as cash readily available.  Hunting expeditions of elite combat types against White Supremacists to make them prove their theories in combat could deal with race trials. Same with racist police.

This may not seem a punishment but it does appear that at no time have those who espouse conspiracies of jews and ideas of racial superiority had to fight a battle against elite forces types of any non white people. Such a proving ground may have appeal and imprisonment does not deter such attacks. So a trial to determine guilt may be desired but this could a recourse or again in place of a trial by Jury. Not vigilantism in this case as it would be by arrangement. Cordoned area plus rifles for hunting and ammunition acattered across specific locations in forests plus police cordon to keep bystanders out.