In a jury trial, potential jurors are selected from a cross section of the local community.

Sample Solution

    Whether or not citizens drawn from the community are capable of setting aside their personal feelings and biases to judge an accused is a complex question. There is no easy answer, and the answer may vary depending on the individual juror and the specific case. Some people believe that citizens are inherently biased and that they will always bring their personal opinions and experiences into the jury room. They argue that this is why it is important to have a jury of peers, so that the biases of the jurors will cancel each other out.

Full Answer Section

    Others believe that citizens are capable of setting aside their personal feelings and biases in order to judge an accused fairly. They argue that citizens are able to do this because they are motivated by a sense of civic duty and a desire to see justice done. I believe that it is possible for citizens to set aside their personal feelings and biases to judge an accused fairly. However, I also believe that it is important to select jurors carefully and to screen out jurors who are likely to be biased. Are regular citizens able to understand complex concepts or emotional testimony? Why or why not? Regular citizens are capable of understanding complex concepts and emotional testimony. They may not have the same level of education as judges, but they are intelligent and capable of learning new things. They are also familiar with the emotional experiences of life, and they can understand the testimony of witnesses who are expressing strong emotions. Of course, not all citizens are equally capable of understanding complex concepts or emotional testimony. Some citizens may have a learning disability or a cognitive impairment that makes it difficult for them to understand complex information. Others may have experienced trauma or abuse that makes it difficult for them to deal with emotional testimony. It is important to select jurors who are capable of understanding the complex concepts and emotional testimony that may be presented in a trial. However, it is also important to select jurors who are representative of the community and who have the common sense and judgment to make fair decisions. Some other countries use “mixed tribunals” that include several judges and citizens deciding cases together. List two reasons why you think a mixed tribunal system in the United States would be favorable, or two reasons why you oppose mixed tribunals, and remember to support your choices. There are two main arguments in favor of mixed tribunals:

1. Mixed tribunals can provide a more balanced decision-making process. Judges are experts in the law, but they may not have the same level of understanding of the community as citizens. Citizens, on the other hand, may not have the same level of understanding of the law as judges. Mixed tribunals can provide a balance of expertise and community understanding.
2. Mixed tribunals can help to build public trust in the justice system. Citizens who participate in mixed tribunals are more likely to feel like they have a stake in the justice system and that their voices are being heard. This can help to build public trust in the justice system.

There are also two main arguments against mixed tribunals:

1. Mixed tribunals can be more time-consuming and expensive than trials with only judges. Citizens need to be educated about the law and the case before they can participate in a mixed tribunal. This can take time and money.
2. Mixed tribunals can be less predictable than trials with only judges. Citizens may not be as familiar with the law as judges, and they may make decisions that are not in line with the law. This can lead to uncertainty and unfairness.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to use mixed tribunals is a complex one. There are pros and cons to both systems, and the best system may vary depending on the specific case.