• My have dog yes

    My dog says yes because many judges could be biased if they enjoy eating the woof woof and meow meow my dog my dog many people are bad and eat the dog with fryer or possible roaster this isn't good. Most juries are no favour of eat woof woof so this is good for dog

  • 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.

  • It made sense in 1776

    It did make since during the 1700's and 1800's, As laws were a bit simpler back in the day. There are so many problems with trails by jury, Some of which still would be there if it was just by a judge. Just here is a short list of problems.

    1: Mistrials because jury couldn't react a unanimous verdict.
    2: Bias/racial juries (can fit judges). They also are generally favoring who has more money to spend.
    3: Laws have become so complex, That most people have little understanding of them
    4: Many people honestly don't care and only there because they have to be there. So they could not voice their opinion and just go along with group (even if they disagree) just to get it over with.
    5: Pointing to 4, This sort of comes down to who is the best at being the alpha dog. Not who makes the best points. So it can really just be 1 person deciding not (insert number here)
    6: Juries are more easily tricked into being emotional (just watch Law & Order SVU. They try this a lot, And at times it does fail) than if they broke the law. Justice is suppose to be blind for a reason.
    7: Problem is everyday life now has us too busy to be on a jury. The cost is too much for some people. We've "lost the community" aspect of the country and now "it's heavily focused on a single cog". Making trail by jury more harmful to the jurors than it used to.
    8: Many cases are now just handled by a plea deals, Where you plead guilty for less time. Making juries almost outdated.

    That all being said. If you could go to school to become a jury. And we got a 100's of them, Than they would be selected would be ok with me. It's still a jury, But how a jury really should be.

  • Jurors don't have to say why

    I think for me personally the worrying thing about the jury and the system itself is the jury don’t even have to say why they want someone to be put in prison for a lifetime. It is impossible for us to realise biased opinions and influences on the jury until after the conviction, But when it’s a death penalty its too late. Someone’s life gone because the jurors could not retain their biased opinions for a few hours.

  • 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 ?

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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.