Many academics argue that the US should abandon the jury system in favor of a trial by the bench. To determine whether employing a bench trial is more reliable, it is crucial first to comprehend what each method includes. A defendant may face a bench trial or a jury trial in a criminal case in state court. A judge makes the same procedural decisions, hears the evidence, and determines if the accused is guilty or not in a bench trial. On the contrary, a jury trial is presided over by a panel of twelve members chosen at random. There are numerous concerns that sentencing by a jury can be biased; however, in reality, juries eliminate the chances of prejudice because it enlists the help of a group instead of a single judge.
One must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each to decide whether a bench trial or a jury trial is more efficient and fairer. According to the Connect US Fund Organization report, there are many merits to a trial by jury. The first reason is that it works to eradicate bias within the justice system by enlisting the help of a group. A final jury in the US must include twelve members (“14 Important Pros and Cons of the Jury System”). A community representative might participate in decision-making instead of a single person. Anyone serving on a jury must be 18 years old or older; this usually assures maturity in the courtroom, even if the mix of individuals is chosen at random.
There are many arguments against a jury trial, and the discussion on this seemingly basic issue is never-ending. Some claim that the US should do the same because nations like Pakistan abolished juries due to fear of discrimination among jurors and a general aversion to serving (Fuchs). The fundamental point is that a jury might convict someone based on bias rather than facts and that lawyers can sway a jury to their advantage. In the US, jurors with no legal expertise are sometimes called upon to resolve matters involving complex topics such as intellectual property law (Fuchs). Such a jury may not fail to determine complex cases involving industries like construction or patent laws. According to Bennett and Blocker, “many legal practitioners confidently maintain that we in the construction industry should never let a jury touch one of our cases” (1). Finally, a jury can take longer to reach a final ruling. However, a magistrate or judge can usually decide within a few days, if not hours.
Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution and the Sixth Amendment provide the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. The grappling concern is whether the US should abolish the trial by jury system in favor of trial by bench. Trial by jury should never be eliminated because the advantages outweigh the cons. Even though jury trials have been discontinued in Africa, Pakistan, Singapore, Africa, and India due to a consensus that jurors are compromised, it is uncertain that judges are not biased. Many people would agree that having twelve heads is preferable to one.
In brief, since the jurors are not subjected to crimes or atrocities daily, their verdicts are more likely to be accepted by the rest of society. In essence, it is much easier for a juror to see oneself in the same situation as the defendant, trying to make the judgment. Judges are less swayed by emotional factors in cases and prefer to make decisions based only on legal knowledge. Therefore, they may reach an entirely different conclusion because they examine the matter as a highly-skilled legal professional rather than a regular citizen. This may not be a bad thing, but it may leave the human aspect of the crime unaddressed.
Works Cited
Bennett, Brian W., and Jonathan M. Blocker. “Judge or Jury? Pros and Cons and Factors to Evaluate for Each.” Victor O. Schinnerer & Company, Inc, 2015, Web.
“14 Important Pros and Cons of the Jury System.” ConnectUS, Web.
Fuchs, Erin. “This Is Why Juries Shouldn’t Decide Court Cases.” Business Insider, 2014, Web.