Homework Help

What do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages to a trial with a jury?

user profile pic

deadrising | Student | eNotes Newbie

Posted July 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM via web

dislike 4 like

What do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages to a trial with a jury?

11 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

prospero | College Teacher | (Level 2) Adjunct Educator

Posted July 8, 2009 at 11:47 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

A trial is either by jury or a bench-trial (meaning by judge only).

Juries have a way of letting emotion and circumstance influence their decision, whereas a judge might be much less inclined to focus on anything other than the correct legal result.  For instance, if a defendant is on trial for murder, but claims that the act of killing was done in self-defense, the defendant may want to appeal to the jury members' emotions.  Sometimes the evidence (witnesses, police reports, etc.) may not completely support the defendant's case, but a sympathetic jury might still come back with a verdict of not-guilty. 

On the other hand, if the jury is not likely to sympathize with the defendant, but the evidence is strong in the defendant's favor, the defendant may prefer a bench trial.  Perhaps there is strong evidence that the defendant did not commit this crime, but the defendant has a previous criminal record which could hurt his/her chances of success with a jury who does not like criminals.

Whether to seek a trial by jury is ordinarily going to depend on the specific facts of the case-at-hand.

user profile pic

epollock | Valedictorian

Posted July 8, 2009 at 3:19 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

I would say the biggest disadvantage is that most jury members do not understand the laws that they have to follow nor do they understand the judge's instructions most of the time. I was actually on 3 juries back home in RI and members kept on asking me to explain some of the proceedings to them.

user profile pic

mshurn | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted July 8, 2009 at 9:16 PM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

Trial by jury certainly doesn't guarantee a perfect path to justice, but it offers criminal defendants certain advantages--at least in theory. A majority of twelve people must be convinced of a person's guilt in order to convict, and a unanimous vote to convict is required in capital cases. For a defendant, there is safety in numbers. Getting a majority of twelve people or all twelve to agree to convict would be harder for a prosecutor, for instance, than working with a jury of six, eight, or even ten. The evidence would be compelling to accomplish a conviction. Also, twelve people from different walks of life bring a variety of expertise and life experience to the jury.

Most of the disadvantages are rooted in this one fact: Jurors are human beings subject to human failings. Some are smart; some are not. Some are well educated; some are not. Some are open-minded; some are not. Some take responsibility seriously; some don't. Also, since avoiding jury duty has become a minor American art form, drawing a jury of one's peers is not always likely. Finally, a jury can suffer from "group think," composed of people who automatically accept the prevailing social and political thinking of the community or the area of the country in which they live.

user profile pic

akannan | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted July 21, 2009 at 6:59 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

The jury system is a reflection of the Framers' hopes in the Constitution.  The theory of an active and concerned citizenry is a compelling one and it is very logical that such awareness would be what the Framers envisioned to assist in the determination of guilt of accused individuals.  The theory might have some challenges in its practice, to which previous posts have alluded.  Yet, the theoretical hopes of the Framers cannot be overlooked in seeing the potential positives of a jury system, despite how the reality might sometimes dissipate such hopes.

user profile pic

lhc | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Educator

Posted July 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

The fallibility of human beings as jurors, is probably the biggest disadvantage to the jury trial.  Especially troubling to me as an educator is to consider the proliferation of grade inflation and the number of students we are sending out into the world who think they are really, really smart because they've never gotten anything but A's; it's easier to give students A's.  It keeps "helicopter parents" at bay, and students tend to like these teachers better.  The idea of having someone sitting on a jury who thinks of him or herself as really, really smart, when in fact he or she really, really isn't does not inspire confidence in the judicial process as our Framers intended it to work.  And we are sending a lot of really, really not-so-smart kids out into the world, thinking of themselves as geniuses.  On a different note, I'll never forget hearing one of the jurors at the conclusion of the O.J. Simpson trial saying, among other things, "I had my reasonable doubts."  This woman clearly had no idea that "reasonable doubt" is a serious and important legal concept, not a casual catch phrase.  It was disheartening to know that in her mind, she had carried out her civic duty exactly as it was intended; while her efforts were no doubt sincere, she was clearly not understanding the gravity of the concept of reasonable doubt.

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted July 22, 2009 at 7:39 AM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

Advantages of trial by jury

  1. As there are many persons from different background, the individual prejudices are likely to cancels out.
  2. Juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.
  3. Discussions among juries is likely to lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case.
  4. It is more difficult to corrupt 12 juries through than just one judge.

Disadvantages of trial by jury

  1. The juries are not knowledgeable about the law.
  2. Juries do not have any special skill in giving judging cases.
  3. Since the decision by jury is a group decision, individual members of the jury may not feel that responsible about their duties and therefore neglect it.
  4. Juries may be swayed by the current prejudices in the society, which are not supported by law.

 

user profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted October 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

Instead of a jury, what then?  Bench trials may have their purpose, like proceedings for a traffic violation, but for important civic and criminal proceedings, juries are the superior system, since involving a jury limits the power of the judge.  For all the points mentioned, juries have their problems, but having the citizenry participate in court proceedings serves to underscore the principle of government by and for the people; in short, it is a democratic institution.  Juries have to power to determine was is factual, and decide accordingly upon guilt or innocence; the judge states and executes the law.  However, juries have a key power little discussed which provide a check on the other branches of government, namely, they have the power of nullification.  Legislatures are, in theory, random collections of citizens that make laws.  Juries are a random collection of citizens that may nullify law -- in other words, determine that a law broken in a civil or criminal proceeding should not be a law at all.  This was to provide a judicial check on the legislature--that if a bad law is enacted, and people are put to trial because of it, even if guilty by the codification of the law, the jury can determine that no crime or civil infraction occurred because that particular law shouldn't exist, and their nullification effectively repeals that law. This power allows juries to exercise a check and balance and helps insure a well functioning democratic government.

user profile pic

frannii101 | Student , Grade 10 | eNotes Newbie

Posted July 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

Having a jury is both an advantage and a disadvantage. One of the most important things about the jury system is the fact that it is supposed to remain an unbiased third party and be a cross section of society, representing numerous opinions and values of society. However this cannot be the case when you consider all the people that are not allowed to be on a jury. All the people eliminated, challenged, excused; all those who do not fit within the guidelines of being able to sit on a jury. Therefore the jury can never truly be a cross section of society.

user profile pic

rmagdale | College Teacher | eNotes Newbie

Posted October 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

Advantages of trial by jury

  1. As there are many persons from different background, the individual prejudices are likely to cancels out.
  2. Juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.
  3. Discussions among juries is likely to lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case.
  4. It is more difficult to corrupt 12 juries through than just one judge.

Disadvantages of trial by jury

  1. The juries are not knowledgeable about the law.
  2. Juries do not have any special skill in giving judging cases.
  3. Since the decision by jury is a group decision, individual members of the jury may not feel that responsible about their duties and therefore neglect it.
  4. Juries may be swayed by the current prejudices in the society, which are not supported by law.

 

This is an excellent post.

user profile pic

johnmc4 | eNotes Newbie

Posted December 10, 2011 at 4:50 AM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like

Could anyone tell me if the celebrity factor means famous defendants will always opt for a trial by jury ?

Let's take for example the Michael Jackson 1993 civil trial; the lawsuit reached a settlement before Jackson was about to testify; had there been no settlement, would Jackson's lawyers have opted for a trial by jury, trying to capitalise on Jackson's fame ?

Who decides whether it's a trial by jury or by judge ?

user profile pic

loraaa | Student | Valedictorian

Posted January 1, 2012 at 5:39 AM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like
This topic is very great, thank you very much for this good effort. I have benefited a lot from it. I wish everyone to benefit from this excellent topic. Thank you again....

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes