### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
Do you believe a jury is really the most reliable group to sentence a person?
Sentences depend on the current social norms. Social norms determine how most people think about things. Therefore, a sample of such 'ordinary' people may give a reliable sentence weighted by the current views of the society.this isnt an answer but a question: if jurys are so reliable, why are they never asked to explain the reasons for their decision in writing so that they can be reviewed...
That is an excellent question. Honestly, I was thinking what would I do if I was called for 'Jury Duty' in some more serious case (criminal case). Proof would really have to be rock solid (like a video tape with accused taped killing/raping a victim). Otherwise, I would have difficulty in giving a 'Guilty' vote. Do you believe a jury is really the most reliable group to sentence a person? Trial by Jury has worked for centuries because few are casual about loosing sleep about wrongfully convicting somebody.
The LabConDem Government hates it because it costs lots more than a judge, and because its less work for people they ultimately have the power to control & appoint.
All people should have the right to trial by jury
All people should be sentenced at a length agreed by a jury, and only a judge if they can’t agree.
Judges should just not monitor court decisions. Honestly, I do not feel that a jury is the best group to determine someone's innocence. If the jury is able to lie about a grudge they have with someone they could easily convince the rest that the defendant is guilty, truthfully, many people just assume that if someone is on trial they're guilty