A jury composed of a diverse and unbiased group of people can lend some definite advantages to a person being tried for a crime. For example, in the unlikely instance that a single judge would be unfairly biased against the defendant, there would be much less of a chance of all the jurors being biased. Unfair bias was what the trial by jury system was originally intended to prevent.

A jury composed of a diverse and unbiased group of people can lend some definite advantages to a person being tried for a crime. For example, in the unlikely instance that a single judge would be unfairly biased against the defendant, there would be much less of a chance of all the jurors being biased. Unfair bias was what the trial by jury system was originally intended to prevent.

The advantage of having a trial by jury allows a sort of "second trial." For example, in the movie Twelve Angry Men, every single jury member voted guilty, except for one. The other eleven men demanded his reasons for voting Not Guilty, and he gave them. In the end, they voted Not Guilty unanimously. Now, the defendant in question was charged with murder, to which the penalty was death by electrocution. However, the evidence, which most of the jury members did not question, was not as sound as they thought, and the man that voted Not guilty showed them that. If the defendant hadn't had a jury, then he would have been sentenced to death, whether he was guilty or not, due to the meager and circumstantial evidence.

The obvious advantages of having a trial by jury is that they with hold the decision of deciding guilty or not guilty of the accuser. It gives the ability to try the accused case with a new set of eyes. They can only judge the person on what has been presented in court and so from the constitution it would be considered a fair trial. So it definitely has its advantages in the fact that it can assist in the biggest decision of someones life through having ordinary people like you and me use the materials presented and come up with a justified reason.

I support trial by jury because it gives the accused defendant or plaintiff a fair and adequate review of their argument. Without the jury, it would be left up to the minds and hearts of the judges, which are often times unrelenting due to their experience and knowledge of the matters at hand. Jurors tend to be emotionally tapped by the defendants plea which can cause them to not be as biased as a judge and make a beneficial decision whether it be guilty or not guilty.

The jury has a right to role a law that is napplicable to a particular circumstance. The Government was built on checks and balances, that is the ultimate checks they don't teach or talk anymore. The power to say,"the law is unjust".

An advantage of having a jury is that the person on trial gets a verdict from a neutral voice in the case from an unrelated outside group of people. The jury gets to hear both sides of the case, view evidence, and gets to view how the defendant responds to the case. The juror then gets to cast their vote, based on their feelings about the case. Without the jury the choice would be left up solely to the judge, who sometimes let their personal views on the case and/or defendant affect their better judgment.

JURYS ARENT ALL BAD SO GIVE THEM A CHANCE BECAUSE THEY CAN WORK ON YOUR SIDE