Do you think Jury Trials are a help or hindrance to justice?

Question

so far i feel they are a hindrance because of:

- possible bias for example the O.J Simpson Case and the Liny Chamberlin case.

- They are Expensive.

- They are Time Consuming.

- They have a lack of knowledge and cannot make an informed decision.

- The CSI effect.

do you agree with these?

feel free to elaborate on my points.

Thanks.

Answer 1

how else can they do it???

internet polls?

LOL.

M'dam... if you can find a better way... im certain you will win a peace prize of somesort.

lawyers and the trials are a total dead-loss to any system.

so if you take things from a monetary and time point of view, as you have done.... the best way is if everybody totally honest (impossible)only other way is if one person just dictates. which is rather harsh, and brings more problems.

Yer your right... the whole race debate, the whole celebrity bullsh*t that orbited that case was such an expensive mess.... but Just one extremely strange case doesnt mean changing it for the whole system. Kinda silly i recon.

there is no point in critizing such a important system, without thinking of possible solutions... some things... like justice and wars... just dont have a perfect human solution. we can ***** on about it all day, write articles and arguments... but doesnt really lead anywere. just fix urself and know urself... if everybody does that, we wont need any of this

Answer 2

definatly a help .

Answer 3

I think they're to take some power away from the judge, give it the people.  I wonder if having your peers judge will result in justice.  I sat on a jury once and was appalled at how prejudiced some of the jurors were; they made a decision without any evidence, just there opinion. Also the dominant male of the group easily persuaded those who had doubts.  Since then I've been interested in the role of the Jury in our legal system.  What law does the common person know?  Do they think critically about the person charged with a crime? Or are the police and prosecution looked at critically by the juror?  Should deliberations be confidential or should there be an audit of how they're decision was reached?  Prejudice could be deciding the persons future.  I think this is what is wrong with the system.  Nobody knows what happens in the jury room, and it could be a bunch of idiots in there.