Yes, trials by jury are a great way to administer justice. The justice system should and does err on the side of caution by allowing an individual to be tried by a jury of his or her peers. This helps ensure that the innocent do not go to prison, even if it means a few guilty individuals get away with crimes here and there.
A jury trial is guaranteed for those accused of crimes in the U.S. Constitution. Juries must agree on convictions beyond a reasonable doubt in order to send someone to jail. Jury trials are better than dictatorships or Islamic justice where someone gets a hand cut off. Juries aren't perfect, but they are good for the American justice system.
I believe jury trials are a good way to administer justice, but I think it would be better if we had larger juries. I believe it is best to present the facts to people so they can make a non-biased decision regarding the evidence. I believe this helps keep they system fair.
Jury trials are a good way to administer justice. The more people that can weigh in on a case and give their opinions the better it is to make sure the people are bought to justice or not and can influence the decision. I think jury trials are a good way to administer justice.
Anyone who thinks ordinary, random people can come to a fair verdict needs to read this article:
If we really wanted to conduct fair trials we would make "juror" a profession requiring a college degree obtained only after extensive education about human biases and countering one's own biases in the courtroom.
Jury trials are not a good way to administer justice. They create a group mentality in their fully agree or disagree process, which forces some jurors to decide on a side they actually don't believe. People always want group unity and this psychology is preventing actual justice in the courts.