Positive and Negative Sides of the Jury System

A jury is a group of twelve people, whose responsibility is to reach a verdict at the end of a
trial in some countries. Although it is an efficiently working system for centuries, sometimes it is
thought to be unfair. Basically every citizen who is at least eighteen, never have been convicted and
does not have disqualifying mental or physical condition can be juror.
As the members are not professionals, it raises questions about the objectivity of this system.
People can easily be influenced by both personal emotions and bias. It is difficult to find a
representative jury that is also fair and impartial. Additionally, because of they can be
impressionable, well-prepared prosecutors and attorneys can persuade them about their own verity.
Even for professional lawyers and judges it is hard to see things from an objective point of view. It
can happen that jurors get lost among the laws, and they are more likely to make decision according
to their own value system.
On the other hand this system is a good representation of democratic values by allowing the
citizens to take part in decision making processes. Jurors are all equals, and everyone has the right to
give their opinion. This way many different points of view can meet which contributes the impartial
decision. The participation of citizens also make the verdict more acceptable for people, as the jury is
their representation in a way.
Basically the fairness of this system depends on the selected members. They should fit some
given description and criteria besides the existing ones, for instance a minimum level of education or
adequate psychological condition for an individual case, and maybe their professionalism would not
be questioned. In this way they are both ordinary citizens and also professionals from a point of view.
All things considered the basic concept of this system meets the aims of a judicial system,
because well-founded decisions can be made by the jury. In addition the verdict is more acceptable
by the majority of citizens as well. If it is possible to find a solution on the professionalism of the jury,
it can become a fair democratic system.