Why do u think we have juries?
106351
The law is set up so that people can get a fair trial through the decisions of a jury of your peers, however I am not sure that it has ever been the case. Trials that I have been involved with hasn't seemed very fair to me.
324630
I was once asked for jury duty but was not selected.\nI would love to sit on a jury, especially if it is an interesting case.\nIt is a good way to find out how our legal system works or doesn't work.\nHowever, would not relish sitting in court for months on end.\nIn Canada, an employer cannot deduct pay if you have been picked as a juror.
243736
You made me smile ... good question ... maybe because we accept on faith the big things that we cannot check, but like to have personal experience of the little ones that are within our power to check ... just my thoughts ...
182688
Definetly because 12 people are selected for a Jury and they have to weigh the evidence presented by both sides.\n\nNot to mention in Criminal cases all 12 Jurors have to vote either Guilty or not Guilty and if even 1 votes differently than the rest then the Jury is officially Deadlocked.
337841
I've never been called to be on a jury.\n\nMost people I've talked to who have been called to a jury have stated that it was just a waste of their time.\n\nThe concept of a jury is a good one, though, and the purpose it serves is valuable. Having a jury could mean the difference in civil suits where a plaintiff does or does not get the relief they seek. Juries in criminal cases are required since so much of the criminal law has to do with "what was reasonable" and other intangibles that should be left for the "every day man or woman to decide."\n\nTorts cases (and, boy, are there a lot) benefit from juries because the elements of "reasonableness" are present. \n\nJuries, in theory, protect the innocent from being prosecuted unfairly and help to insure that plaintiffs who had been wronged get the damages they are seeking. Juries, however, aren't perfect because they are so often comprised of un-educated people who often let their biases get in the way of justice (only 1/4 of America's adult population is undergraduate college-educated; less than 10% of the adult population has some sort of graduate or professional schooling).
771752
Sure,happens all the time. Thats why good defense attorneys make the big bucks, he knows how to manipulate the system to circumvent any guilt and cause doubt in the jurys minds. Look at OJ Simpson and others. Basically it comes down to the more money you have the less guilty you are. Client-attorney privledge prevents any true fact between them from being known to anyone else. Another one of the fine perks of our legal system.
817546
Sometimes a bench trial (just a judge) is better than a jury trial. \nThat's why defendants have the right to request a bench trial.\n\nBut there's also the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial, so as far as propoganda goes, it's pretty pointless, since I doubt we'll ever see a constitutional amendment eliminating jury trials.\n\nIt's just a movie.
307252
In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government, or other establishment interest than would representatives of the state.\n\nIn the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials; the vast majority of cases are in fact settled by plea bargain which removes the need for a jury trial.
1032792
the end of the Grim reaper is right..you are probably just looking for an excuse to get out of it..here is awayto get out of jury duty, go live in North Korea, or Cuba...no trial by jury there..it makes me laugh here we have troops putting their life on the line everyday, and most people cant even be bothered to spend one day on Jury duty, the only thing this country asks you to do besides pay taxes..this is what I say if you opt out of jury duty, then if you should ever need a trial by jusy it should be denied to you, if you dont have the time to hear you neighbors case why should they spend the tim elistening to yours
495924
I believe we, as humans, judge without knowing all the facts.  It may appear one way to us, but if we knew all the facts, we may see it another way.  I've had people judge me in a certain situation, but they didn't know what I had been through and they only saw the choice I made, not that I didn't have a choice.
574499
The fundamental role of a jury in any case is to be the "fact-finder", meaning that every dispute over a fact gets decided by the jury, while the judge serves to answer disputes over the law.  For example, the judge decides whether a specific piece of evidence is legally relevant to the case and decides whether the evidence gets shown to the jury.  The jury would decide whether the evidence shows that one side or the other is telling the truth and deserves to be believed.\n\nIn a civil negligence case, the plaintiff (person suing) has to prove that (1) the defendant had a duty (2) that he broke, which (3) caused (4) damages.  All four have to be proved.  Usually, in a negligence case, the duty will be to be as careful as a reasonable person in the circumstances, but it can be different.  The third part, causation, can be pretty tricky, too, because effects can have distant, indirect causes (like a car hitting a telephone pole, which tips over, scaring a lady who drops her new vase).  Usually, the plaintiff has to prove his case to the jury by either "a preponderance of the evidence" (at least a little more than half-convinced) or "clear and convincing evidence" (more convinced, but maybe still with some doubts or reservations).\n\nIn a criminal case, a jury has the same fact-finding function as in a civil case.  Because a person's life or freedom is at stake, though, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt, meaning that the jury has a duty to find the accused person not guilty if they have any doubts or reservations.
1076408
My question: Why should I believe you?
552196
I believe it's a way of preventing someone from the jury pool from serving on a jury, without having to give a reason.  Other prospective jurors have to be excluded "for cause".  Court rules specify how many "peremptory" challenges each side gets; after they use them up, they have to have a reason for objecting to a prospective juror.
3655
As the above answerers indicate, judges and lawyers are called to jury duty, but they rarely end up on a jury since the lawyers in the case generally don't want an "expert" on the jury (same reason why physicians rarely end up on juries in malpractice cases).  A recent example of a judge being called for jury duty is US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (see Source #1).\n\nYet lawyers and judges sometimes DO end up on juries.  One recent example is Nassau County, NY District Judge William J. O'Brien, who served on a jury hearing a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff's lawyer thought the judge would possibly be "a little more savvy to defense tricks," while the defense attorney said for a medical malpractice case, he wanted "jurors who are intelligent and analytical" (See Source #2).\n\nAs you can see, it is not unheard of to have lawyers or judges sit on a jury, but it is certainly rare.  Hope this helps :-)
144934
No, because our system is supposed to be a system of our peers.  By hiring professional jurors, they would become callous after seeing day after day of trials, and would not be able to look at the law like a reasonable person would.
281657
Its because it makes us feel better when we can find flaws in others. Or differences that we can ridicule. Also if we can be a judge, we feel power full.
331548
why do u believe those rumors?