The system of trial by jury has changed considerably since it was first introduced into 13th century England to replace the old system of trial by physical ordeal. Recently there has been a lot of discussion whether or not the system is efficient enough. There are many strengths to support the system but then again, there are many weaknesses against it. The law itself is very complicated and threatening. All who practice law must have a university degree in law. Jurors don't. They are randomly selected persons from the community who have no knowledge of the law. They are underqualified and inexperienced. Still, they sit at trials and are asked to make decisions on something they know nothing about. Is this right? Still, the jury is there to represent the community and they do ensure that the community's values and beliefs are brought into consideration. When a judge makes a decision, they are obliged to give reasons for their decision and any errors in their reasoning are therefore able to be appealed.
Trial by jury does take some power away from the State and the responsibility is shared between all of us. The system lets the peers decide on what they think is right. But when they are giving their verdict before the court they are not allowed to give reasons for their decision. In fact, if they do tell the court their reason for the decision, they can be held for contempt of court. This could mean that their entire logic is wrong but no one would know. The process of fact finding is something each of us does everyday; we gather pieces of information together, we base information upon our own experiences, we then draw conclusions and we act upon those conclusions. A jury operates in a similar way, except with twelve minds rather than one. When twelve people come together as a jury they can string their experience and skills in assessing the evidence presented. Can we be sure that a panel of judges or a judge sitting with two experts would have more common sense than a jury? Trial by jury is only one of the many possible ways for a case to be heard.
