This week we have been discussing the judiciary, or how justice is administered in the various nations. Let us have some fun with an exercise discussion this week. The American jury system was inherited from that of England and is firmly entrenched in our system of jurisprudence through the Constitution. That being said, however, we have often heard complaints about that very jury system. The complaints are many including but not limited to that the jurors do not understand court rules, they do not understand evidence, and their personal biases often play a role in their verdicts. As we read of the judiciary of other nations we often see juries play a much less part in the administration of justice.
Argue one of the following points this week, again, just for the fun of it.
1. Our present jury system is satisfactory the way it is and should not be altered in any way. Explain why you believe it to be so.
2. Our present jury system is good, but far from perfect and needs to be changed. Explain the changes you would make and why.
3. Many nations use panels of judges, from two to five, to make the decisions. Would that system work in the United States? Why or why not?
4. Many nations use lay judges under various names to assist judges in making decisions. Would this meet the need to give the populace a common say in the administration of justice? Why or why not?
5. In reference to the concept of lay judges above, is there a means to develop a system of professional jurors, people with some basic legal training to replace our present jury system?
