Answer to Question #27219 in Law for prabhdeep

Question

the main arguments for and against the jury system

Answer 1

Pros: the conviction or acquittal shall be made not by one person (the judge), but accounted for 12
reviews for the jury. The opportunity to conduct a more detailed analysis of the case and considered the
various views as jurors - people of different ages, genders, social class,
etc., have a completely different way of thinking, perception and views on the
situation, as well as life experience. Judgement of conviction or acquittal shall be made by people who have no interest in the
outcome of the case and thus render a fair decision in their eyes because of
their views on the matter.

Cons:the conviction or acquittal may be imposed by people who do not have life
experiences that do not have an objective thinking, indifferent to justice
solutions. It turns out that completely random, often incompetent in law, people decide the
fate of the accused, but they can make a mistake and leave criminals on the
loose, dangerous to society, or to imprison an innocent person, to break their
fate. Ie,the basis of the jury is not the legitimacy but group representation of
justice. Yetit is not the same for different people and often goes beyond not only the law,
but also common sense.
Ina jury trial the professional judge is not responsible for the legality and
validity of the verdict, was relieved of the burden of proof and the active
search for the truth, and only performs technical functions. The jury's verdict of not guilty of the defendant is required for him, and he, even
if he believes it is unreasonable, can not do anything, and should be obliged
to acquit the defendant, and the immediate release from custody.
Representative of the state - the prosecutor is also limited in his rights. Bylaw, he is not allowed to mention in their indictment that the defendant repeat
offender, and most of his life in prison, acknowledged alcoholic or drug
addict, as well as other information, casting a shadow on the defendant. If he tries to do this, the judge interrupted a speech and explain to the jurors
that they should not consider these circumstances in reaching a verdict.