(*only qualification and then list three things.) Obviously my command of the English language isn't great tonight.

I don´t know if I can do that, as I don´t know the exactly way that Jurys works on US.
The main argument against Jury is this from Maniac, the members of the Jury don´t need to have especialized knowledge about Law or other technical issues and thus judge by emotion or get tired and acquit.
The main argument on favour of a Jury is you have the "right to be judged by our peers", in other words, only n (21/13, don´t know much people are on jury on US) other citzens equals as you have the right to say you have commited a crime, not a decision for a single technical judge that can have her own prejudices and moral values.

Also on the 'against' side - juries are the last bulwark the people have against tyrannical laws - see 'Jury Nullification' (unfortunately, 'jury nullification' was recently declared a crime here in California - can you believe the irony?). Juries are also largely free from the political manipulation which can be worked on judges who are in most cases political appointees (for example, the judge in the Pentagon Papers case was offered a seat on the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon if he returned a verdict favorable to the government. To his great credit, he didn't - but you have to wonder how many federal judges would've done the same).

You must not live in the US, since jury trials are in the Constitution here. Congress can't just abolish it because we don't have parliamentary supremacy.

I hope you're looking at scholarly sources as well.

"Juries in complex fraud trials sometimes have to sit for years weighing up complex evidence which frankly is beyond seasoned accountants."

Who decides, then?

I live in the England

@Invictus: "You must not live in the US, since jury trials are in the Constitution here"

Most of the important parts of your constitution are amendments. Isn't it theoretically possible that at some future point there could be further amendments?

Yes it is....

on the against side there is the fact that a jury can be bribed or intimidated.

They are just people with families. It is easier to get a prosecution from a special criminal court where three judges sit each who has chosen to take the job knowing the risk, and is therefore is less likely to be intimidated, (and may be offer protection from themselves and their families)

This is the case for some criminal cases in Ireland where organised crime gangs or members of paramilitrary groups are being prosecuted.

Though i think if i was agrueing against this point I would come to the conclusion that in some cases running a juryless court is a neccessary evil, and that in most cases a jury is better. (counter that logic!)

The greater risk is that the constitution will just be ignored, as it often is...

I'd point you to the research done on juries by Prof. Shari Diamond (of Northwestern University). It is both enlightening and frightening.

My own opinions and experiences (mixed with empirical research) suggest that juries tend not to follow the law, but make decisions on their own notions of what is "right." They do exactly what they are not supposed to do. They have biases that should be excluded. They don't understand the issues. They don't pay attention. They resent sitting in a jury box for days on end. (Now, the same could probably be said for many judges...)

That said, juries are a bulwark against tyranny and probably harder to bribe than a judge. There is also the 12 heads are better than one theory, in that they will make a better decision than a lone judge. It is also a vital piece of a vibrant democracy--that if our community decides to pass certain laws, we as citizens must be ready to enforce them.

@ groverloaf
you say juries tend not to follow the law, is the system not that juries make decisions based on fact, i.e who is lieing, if he really killed her etc... and the judge interprets this, applying it to the law and then sets out the sentence

so the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not and the judge applies the law when sentencing.

but the jury is supposed to interpret the law when sentencing, not use their own morale judgement. Although I would argue that the two should be he same. (ie laws should be based on the common understanding of what is morally right)

@dave bishop: That's the way it is supposed to work. At least in the US. But if a jury is told what the law is, and doesn't like it, it can simply interpret the facts in a way to squeeze its opinion into what it thinks the the law should be. This is true in criminal law cases, where a jury might simply decide it doesn't agree that a certain act is against the law, and therefore acquit regardless of the evidence. But I would say it is even more true in the civil context--as the jury often must decide the amount of damages to award, which gives a jury a massive amount of discretion, regardless of what the law says.

@orathaic: in criminal cases in the US, the jury only gets involved in sentencing when the death penalty is an option. Regarding your statements on "morally right" laws, I would agree, except that "morally right" is a difficult thing to define, let alone codify. We can also disagree on what is morally right and what is not.

Over here in Blighty, there was a famous case where an ancient, but much loved comedian came up before the courts for fiddling his taxes. I do not doubt that their case was proven, but there wasn't a jury in the country who were going to find him guilty. He was just too popular and too well liked (and still is).

BTW this is me arguing in SUPPORT of jury trials. Common sense can prevail whereas, if there are just a few crusty old judges deciding someone's fate based solely upon points of law, common sense would go out the window.

Pros:

Jurors are unqualified lay-people, who are unable to properly assess the merits of arguments. The have no proven skills in attentiveness, analysis and fairness; they are liable to prejudice, for instance judging people by their appearance. They are totally out of their depth in trials on, say, fraud, where the law is complex and cases can last months, even years. They should be replaced by Magistrates or lawyers, magistrates being a half way house between the qualified and the citizen, so particularly appealing.

Most jurors will be swayed by the summing up of the judge. A panel of magistrates would not be so swayed, limiting the influence of a single person over the case.

The risk of biased judges is far more reduced by more open courts, which is very possible in the modern day. This means that juries' original purpose is invalid.

Jury service can be very damaging to the jurors and the people they work for, particularly in longer cases. The effect of this can be that the least appropriate people sit on these cases, since those who are capable also have work that means they will ask for a shorter case. There is no reason why the legal system should be damaging to people's lives.

Jurors are often open to persuasion by emotive appeals by lawyers, which are not relevant to the cases.

Cons:

Juries are necessary to counterbalance the possible prejudices of judges.

There is an appeals process for when the jury is misled, notably by the judge in his summary, so there is little reason for concern.

Panels of lawyers or magistrates would be equally open to manipulation by lawyers, but in different ways.

We don't have enough magistrates to form panels of them for all cases, so a jury is still necessary.

The existence of the jury forces the law to be made comprehensible to the lay person. This guarantees rights of the defendant to understand what he is tried for and why he is or is not convicted.

Jurors bring common sense judgement and openness into the courts. Magistrates or Lawyers would be come cynical and disbelieving of common defences, regardless of their validity.

Criminal cases should be screened live and all viewers can vote via the red button. Only twelve randomly selected votes will decide the outcome by a simple majority.

I hope you're joking, Maniac. That's monstrous.

Juries aren't going anywhere in common law countries. They're too central to the process and there's too much tradition behind them to be abolished. At any rate, something like 90% of federal cases in the US don't even go to trial because of plea bargaining, so juries are being used less regardless of what legal theorists might propose. I assume there's a comparable level of plea bargaining in the UK.

a red button? maniac, that's great, only guilty is you press the button. there is no not guilty.

but what will the tv execs do when the justice system takes over as the biggest producer of reality tv?

I could give the example of Brasil, here we have trial by jury only in crimes against live (murder and the likes).
Other crimes are decided by judge or judges. This resolves the problem of the technicality needed in some types os crimes, like economical or fiscal felonys.

Its true they aren't going anywhere Invictus, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make for a competitive debate. In fact, I find some of the best debate positions are ones that will never come to fruit in the real world.

thank you everyone for the advise, especially Ghostmaker (did i make the tournament y the way), grover loaf, orathaic and maniac.
I have noted down points, and will tell you how it went

Yes, you did.

thanks