Close Topic Options

Jury Or Judge

In a trial there are sometimes two options: The Judge makes the final decision as to guilt or innocence or a selected group of people called 'The Jury'? Which one do you think is the most fair - do you think there should be another system or way of deliberating the outcome of a trial?

Judge Jury

I think that there is a better way,just what that way is i dont know ,but what i do know is that man has come to except the system, because its been around for so long and man is, lets face it lazy therefore no one has come up with a better way nor do i think man will we always seem to look for the easy way out

ya for man

we did not come up with a new system,but we did nail mans butt as lazy

Jury Or Judge History & Civil Business Politics

This is very hard to answer, I don't know which way is the most fair but definetly having a jury with normal citizens (not all of them lawyers and stuff) can help to balance the whole thing.

Judge Jury

A jury of your peers is really the only way to deliberate a trial. That way there is little bias and the decision does not rest on a handful of individuals, ie, lawyers and judges.

Judge Jury

I think the jury trial is more just for the following reasons:

1. The jury is independent of the judiciary/government and thus will make a decision more likely to be fair than the vested interest of a judge who is paid by, and a peer of, those whose laws he would be judging.

2. the jury has to be unanimous to find someone guilty and this thus makes injustice less likely

3. the jury provides a check - as a tribune of the people - upon the government so that no person may be punished by government without its consent. It stands as one of three checks people have on government and, in my view, is a vital part of any country that wishes to be called free.


I think the system could be improved by returning back to the way it was intended.

This is how I understand it should work:

1. evidence is brought before Grand Jury to make a decision as to wether or not the evidence is strong enough to take to trial.

2. If Grand Jury decides trial should go ahead then the Judge - acting only as a chairman and advisor (whose advice is in no way binding) - convenes in a public court with the two parties and the Trial Jury which are random members of the law-abiding public chosen from the area in which the crime was said to have occured.

3. The Jury have complete superiority over the court and its officers. They may hold anyone, including the judge, to account. They have a right to all evidence. They have the right to deliberate in secret and essentially run the show: they are a tribune of the people and trump government inasfar as their role in the matter is concerned.

4. Jury decides three things: is the law in question lawful? Was the law in question rightfully applied? Is the person guilty? The final question will always be answered "not guilty" in the event that either or both of the first two questions are a "no".

Thus government cannot ulitmately enforce a law or punish anyone without the tribune of the people's consent. That, in great part, is what has made those countries based on English Common Law so great in their justice. Pity it has becoming so corrupt in recent decades...

Dubhdara.

Jury Or Judge

I am not sure which one is the best but giving it a little thought a Jury at least is a group of people who can discuss the whole thing. A judge is only ONE individual and if he has make his mind there is no way out.

Jury Judge

Readers may be interested in the following short article
which sums up my own feelings on the critical importance of juries
in a free country:

TRIAL BY JURY: AN ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARD FOR A FREE SOCIETY
https://www.freedom-central.net/trialbyjury.html

Dubhdara.

Jury Judge Politics Business Civil & History

I believe that a jury of one's peers is the best way to determine justice. Not only in criminal cases, but in areas such as tort and civil litigation. Torts are based on what a reasonable, average, person would do in the same situation. A random jury of reasonable, average adults, provides the best way of knowing what a reasonable person would do in this situation. Another reason that Juries would better uphold human liberties is the potential bias of judges. Activist judges who attempt to use their power to complete a political agenda should not be allowed to rule in any case. the laws should be upheld as they were written, not as powerful judges believe they should have been written. This is why, in America, there are several level of courts. Each one is able to rectify a problem created by a previous court, and it is very unlikely that a piece of activist legislation will reach the supreme court. If it does, the supreme court must rule according to the constitution. It is obvious that this isn't always the case, and that a problem is then present as to who keeps a check on the supreme court? Although the legislature supposedly does, it is very difficult to pass an amendment with the severe blocking that occurs in both houses. Although this is not what the founding fathers of America intended, the supreme court has control over the laws, legal system, and every day lives of americans.
(I apologize if I have offended anyone with this post)
Merry Christmas
Student