Juries are fundamental to our adversarial criminal justice process and Essay

Juries are fundamental to our adversarial criminal justice crop and the only real guarantee of fairness between the State (as prosecutor) and the Individual - Essay ExampleIn the case of a trial by instrument panel, a finality is rendered by a group of nine-spot individuals who may be drawn from different backgrounds, thereby bringing a depth of understanding of problems that angiotensin converting enzyme judges may not possess. According to Janata, it is the mix of different persons with different backgrounds and psychological traits in the control panel room that produces the desired results. (Janata, 1976 595-596). This feature may imbue juries with a greater ability to discern and educate accurate determinations about the credibility of witnesses and the validity of arguments being offered, especially in criminal trials, especially because a instrument panel is able to evaluate witnesses, plaintiffs and defendants from their perspective as ordinary citizens. Judges may so metimes squeeze mired in the legal formalities and procedures to such an extent it may impede their intuitive judgments.thither is also a greater possibility of bias arising when a single judge makes a conclusiveness on a case, particularly when it is a criminal case. In the case of a jury trial, the decision rendered is the cumulative effect of group deliberation, after the input and reflections from the different members comprising the jury are assimilated. Hence, a jury has the advantage of collective recall and weighing up of factors impacting upon a case. Since each fact is explored and discussed in a group, it allows a group scrutiny where bias is more likely to be eliminated than in the case of a single Judge. Jury trials have been advocated as an effective measure to bring justice to citizens, especially in criminal trials where jurors are believed to be better able to make assessments and judgments about character and believability of witnesses.Gastill and Weiser (2006) debate in favor of jury trials on the basis that being a part of a jury can thorn greater levels of civil engagement from juror citizens and thereby provide a spur for real, deliberative democracy. While jurors do not make policy decisions, the