The professional Judges and Jurors, constituting a committee, personify themselves two various springs, pursuing one aim: an impartial and an objective adjudication and rendering a fair verdict. However, a Judge embodies the Judicial tradition, power, professional knowledge and gathered experience, while the Jurors contribute to a trial a sense of public conscience, which is strictly contained in the mind of fellow citizens, which at times have a diverse idea of Justice contrary to the idea of Judiciary manpower.
As a result, there emerges a special contest between official and unofficial origins of Justice system, that delivers unchallenged authority to the judgment rendered by the Jury inquest. Undoubtedly, every system has its own merits and dispirits from different perspectives. Though, Juries have their passionate defenders, including many lawyers, it is impossible to deny that in its present form Jury has some great defects. At first, as long as the Jurors are very slow, it impedes the Judicial process.
On the second hand, it’s very expensive partly cause it is slow and happens in the courtroom, which is an expensive tribunal, and it is surprisingly accident prone. Moreover, it’s inherent, I believe, putting 12 inexperienced people, which are selected completely at random from the population, and leaving them to decide without anyone toward watching them, without their guarantee to give any reasons for their decision at the end. Thus, it is abundant evidence, that this system has an obvious problem of quality control, which is vital, as it has to be maintained even at the risk of miscarriages of Justice.
Another problem bout no Jury reasons is that we don’t know at the end of the Jury trial, whether the jury convicted on UN/intelligible grounds for UN/acceptable reasons. It is important to note that the Jury gives no reason for its verdict of guilty or not guilty, no questions, which are permitted afterwards, that might infringe the secrecy of the retiring room. It could mean, that convictions are brought about for a rational reasons as well as acquittals. And there’s no way of finding out. Sometimes it could lead to the acquittals of visible crimes.
In favor of development of this system, this aspect is of monumental importance for advancement of civic consciousness. Since Jurors are lay people, who are not legal experts, they decide cases on the basis of fairness. This reduces the harshness of the legal system. Furthermore, the Jurors are protected from pressure and outside influences when deciding verdict. The inquest is racially balanced, and this aspect could be related to the achievement of public fairness, but, on the other hand, issues of racially mixed Juries and racial balance in trials, involving inter-racial crimes, continue to pose unique challenges to the Judiciary.
To crown it all, it is important to note, that Jury service functioning is eligible only in the case if the court system has well established procedure. For instance, the extensive court systems of England, France or Germany can acknowledge this receipt, because the branching of their legal systems in itself confirms, that it can deal with multitasking of not only the Jury system, but also with some governmental decisions. Therefore, I think that the establishment of Jury system depends on whether the Do Jurors Deliver Justice By Marriage justices.