To be judge by a jury: the pros and the cons

Extraits

[...] Indeed, the decision will always be different based on whether it is comes from by a jury X or a jury Y , or is handed down by a judge X or a judge Y. What is important is the way in which the accused will behave. I think the idea that being judged by a jury is more advantageous is a widespread one. In reality, the decision depends on the facts, the personality of the actors in the trial: particularly the personalities of the accused or the persons on the jury who take the final decision. [...]

[...] This example shows the severity which a jury can show towards an accused person. So, it doesn't appear convenient to be judged by the Crown Court under the simple pretext that it's a jury who will decide the litigation, instead of the Magistrates' Court. II. The advantages and the drawbacks to be judge by a judge Given that the judges are professionals, they know the law very well so one might think they apply it in a fair way as their code of conduct requires of them. [...]

[...] The fact that one is being judged by one's peers and not by professional members of the judiciary can be reassuring. Moreover, the jury is composed of several jurors so the decision is less radical than if there is only one person who makes it. Indeed, when there are several jurors here is less chance of making a mistake. However, it can be the opposite. As the jurors are citizens living in the spring of the jurisdiction which rules, they can be more severe. [...]

[...] To be judge by a jury: the pros and the cons In some states like France and Great Britain, the accused persons can be judged by a jury. For example, it's the case before the “Cour d'Assises” in France and the Crown Court in Great Britain. A jury is composed of some citizens who must pronounce a verdict at the end of a trial. This mode of judgement often seems convenient for the persons accused; however is it always the case? [...]