The jury system is defined as a law system whereby a group of peers tries the defendants to determine the real facts and establish their innocence or guilt.
Currently, the juries can be used in determining and assessing facts in various criminal trials because the juries are able to do the job as compared to judges. The juries are the best judges that have the capability of characterizing the behaviors accurately as reasonable or unreasonable because they are able to integrate different experiences and backgrounds. This is beneficial because the mix of different backgrounds in the jury place results to desirable outcomes. In this case, the interaction among the jurors and the counter action on their prejudice and biases is involved. In addition, the juries are able give weight to broad equities in individual cases and they take into account the “human” factor because they are not bound by statute and precedent. In case the law is set down by statute and precedent, the juries are able to manipulate the law to the advantage of all cases (Discussion Paper 12).
On the other hand, the current jury system has some detriments. For instance, the trials by jury have become dysinfunctional in various civil cases. The trials in these cases are time consuming, more costly and they impose undue burdens on the people who have the responsibility of undertaking jury duties as well as the whole society (ABA Journal., 2000).
If I were charged with murder and found out that the jury was made up of high school dropouts, I were to ensure that I search out for all the statutes of whatever that is required by the office of the DA, my rights and also search for the statutes regulating what my court appointed attorney does and how he/she deals with it. I was to inform the jury that I was innocent and in these plea bargains, I was to ensure that my attorney picks the members of the jury who showed the promise of seeing my side. This could save me from false accusations.