Are trials by jury a good thing (yes) or a bad thing (no)?

  • Im been enrolled in multiple law classes and all these poeple have no clue about the law.

    These kids think its bad to have trials by jury but in fact its the opposite.
    You need to hear from the community to have a fair trial. I would be so unfair if one man decided the fate of the defendant. Thats why we need a option for a trial by jury

  • Jury duty is important.

    Jury duty keeps us even with the bar of equality and justice. Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, By which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ” (1798) It. Can take a long time, But it gives the accused a greater chance of returning back to hearth and home instead of walking into a prison cell. Thus we can conclude that jury duty is essential to our well being as a country.

  • I was once in a jury

    Hi my name is Ali Barber. I am an old bava who wen on jury service. It was raaaaaaaaaaar dead. We were trying a man who stole a bank. I thought he was not guilty as his dad could have owned the bank and he was just borrowing. I know he was going to give it back.

  • Hello my name is flabba wabba jabba babba nabba noongah

    Juries are pretty cool i like them i was once one of them im pretty sick lad live at ya mums house and yeah thats pretty much my life story hope it was good and helpful i also play in the NBA and AFL i have a lot of money.

  • To start off the American jury system is a good idea still because it allows citizens to participate in the civic values.

    To demonstrate these citizens can serve as a juror. As well as citizens signing a petition can illustrate participation in society. In the meantime, people vote in elections all the time. The elections are a great way to show how the American jury system is still a good idea. “ elections play a similar role in ensuring “the people’s ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches”. By voting people can feel like they are apart of the decisions for the community around them. Also by voting people have a decision by who is leading rather than just having a few people decide. By voting, it is like citizens have a voice and their voice helps.

  • Juries always have had the most diverse viewpoints.

    Because there is no way to always know the true guilty person simply by one person listening to an argument, juries were created to make the most informed decision. Juries are a group of 12 people who have listened to both sides of the given argument and heard what people saw to find evidence. A jury brings multiple different points of view to a case and they debate until they have a logical decision with no misguided rulings of biases because of the views of multiple different people. Without a jury, the entire judicial system falls apart and loses meaning.

  • Because it is

    The hardest part of because I have can save your my dog 🐶 because I don't have a car and he came it gives you my business life to save your tiny heart and I have no problems because you have no problems and you will not get it right now or and save me your money tiny amount little time for me you

  • Juries have to happen

    Juries are like really cool, cause like one of my brothers were on a jury and like his girlfriend was on a jury and like they really help people who have done bad stuff. And like that will help the criminals and stuff, so yeah that's why they should be every where...

  • Juries are unqualified to determine legal issues. They defense hopes to sway them with emotions or perhaps play to an incompetent Prosecution.

    Why would a prosecution proceed without solid evidence to nail and risk a loss on his record unless they did not have all the facts. (Atty Rule #1 in court: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to) Why would a competent Defense not point out the errors during Discovery; or plea bargain if the evidence was overwhelming? The only reason for Jury Trial is the Defense is guilty.. And they hope the Prosecution screws up. Or that they are guilty and are stalling for time or most likely, the Defense is simply milking the client for more billable time. Either way.. The defense is guilty or incompetent and thus the need for the jury is moot.

  • What else would we have?

    Juries are a good thing because you get male and female views, as well as views from different races. So I would ask the question: What else would we do? As my opposition has stated; People have bias. So if you were to just have the judge decide the outcome of the case all by himself, just by what the judge thinks with no opposition or anyone with equal power. How is that more fair than a jury. With a jury you can have different views and you deliberate until you have a decision everyone can agree on. So is there anything better?

  • No Trial by jury

    People who have criminal records could want to go help the other criminal who is in a trial because criminals and criminals work together to help each other get out to the trail. If there are more criminals than normal people, The criminal will get loose because of the other criminals

  • Only the judge has the knowledge.

    Jury's do not have the right knowledge to determine someone is truly guilty. Since they have too less knowledge off the law to make the verdict. The judge on the other hand has studied for it and will know the right verdict. Their also too often decide by emotion, Rather than evidence and that someone who is obviously innocent, Is guilty by their emotions.

  • End jury duty

    Not everyone is naturally inclined to be a juror, just like not everyone is naturally inclined to be a police officer or a history professor. When people are forced to perform a task outside their natural inclination they become unhappy, and when they become unhappy they perform poorly, so when jury duty forces naturally un-inclined people to serve as jurors, it not only violates their right to pursuit of happiness, but also damages the jury verdict itself. Indeed, most naturally un-inclined jurors, feeling, as they do, and rightfully so, only the loss of their own personal happiness, are willing just to go along with the verdict of the other jurors, right or wrong, in order to recover their own personal happiness as quickly as possible.
    “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime . . . Shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdictions.”
    “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” —Jury duty imposes service on the governed without their consent, and therefore violates this passage.

  • I would say NO.

    Because they basically get decision from their hearts not from their brains so they miss facts that matters, as there is no education level required in this duty. So this is no different from asking opinions from 12 random individuals who most likely have no idea about the subject. Misconduct of justice

  • Juries suck and get everything wrong

    The jury system is a complete L and should be forced to be handled by donald trump the god of all law. Once it is handed to donald, he can decide if the person is guilty and will receive the death penalty or innocent and receive a small loan of $1,000,000

  • Only emotion no common sense

    The prosecutor and defense's only goal in the case would be to win the heart's of the juries. Whoever wins more heart's basically wins the case. These 12 random people chosen for this have absolutely no knowledge of law or justice, all they do is follow emotion without thinking like mindless drones. What is the point of a justice system that follows emotion. THE WORLD IN NOT BUILT UP OF EMOTION. If the point of the case is to win the heart's of the audience' then no one should take such a case seriously. Juries only follow emotion, so it's obvious that a trial by jury is a terrible idea to even begin with.

  • People can be bias!

    This can make a person feel as tho they must decide quickly, when they are chosen, and also ethically. Random people are told to go up to be a jury and decide someones life. Also... The jury is suppose to be familiar with the life styles of the people on trial. Because of my doubt of the people being chosen i am not for a jury, but i don't know any alternate system?

  • Legal Expertise ?

    Well would you like to be judged guilty because the criminal works in mafia and has threatened all the juries members ? Or better would you like to be charged guilty because the juries were tired after a long day of work ? Well honestly juries is not the best solution after all. Why don't we put a panel of judges that have lega expertise , have studied law in university and abolish those poor juries that suck after all ?

  • No trial by jury

    People should not be tried by jury because there is no way that you can tell if the person is really guilty or not. And people judge other people as soon as they see them. And tattoos or piercings or anything like that could be enough for a person to change their mind and make the wrong decision.

  • Juries are intentionally biased.

    During venire the prosecutor and defense ask a series of questions to a large pool of jurors, attempting to determine who is most likely to believe them. They then use a set number of "strikes" to remove those that they believe would be difficult to convince. Once a "suitable" jury is determined, trial begins. Prosecutor and defense rely heavily on emotion and perception to manipulate jurors rather than stark presentation of fact. The entire procedure is a farce intended to placate the masses.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.