...It is time to lay the jury to rest. As this article points out, the benefits the Jury system contributes to justice, are outweighed by its propensity to cause injustice.

...The system fails on more fronts than “Twitter”. It fails in its ability to select its members representatively from the community. When the perception amongst people in the general population is towards the belief that wealthy, Caucasian and English speaking members of society receive far better consideration at the hands of the Jury is almost universal, a fault is exposed. This bias presents as failure in the power of the Jury to ensure a fair outcome for ethnic minorities in our communities such as Aboriginals and Muslims for example.

...Support of the Jury system is lacking too, when the general population present an opinion that they have greater faith in the Judiciary for a fair and balanced outcome. Juries also present as amateurs in an otherwise technical environment of the court room, which can overrule fair outcomes to a trial.

Just scrap the Jury System and be done with it;
It's a violation of MY rights to be conscripted and imprisoned in a courtroom just because the courts need a few average joes sitting around for purely cosmetic reasons (pretending that the courts are accountable and democratic, because the jurors get to vote on the issue, fight the other jurors until they all agree to conform with the vote so they can go home, and this vote will be promptly accepted or ignored by the judge anyway).

Seeing as these people have better things to do than make the courtroom look prettier, and courts in democratic countries around the world have already scrapped it and the sky did not fall in (as the judge, after all, really does hold all the power anyway)- I say we rewrite the constitution to get rid of it.

its absurd to think of 'doing away with juries'

juries arnt the best system...and bye and large
are being duped
by both sides of the law...

but have tradtionally been there
as a specific authority
indeed a right

lets forget the way the sherrif can stack the jury

[as in that young nat leader
on sir joes jury..[that peter beaty let in]

or the fact a sherrif can do anything
to chose the qualified juror..[with no limits]
up to and including phyc evaluating potential jurors
[but only from a select pool...that excludes
many who are likely to appear before it]

lets talkk about 'jury nulification'
where the jury has the right*...
not only to judge guilt or innocence
but indeed..*has the duty to validate OR nullify..the actual law
if the law isnt just[and few laws are just]

and here is why
there is statute law..[civil]..law of contract
and then real law...[criminal]..law of injury

TRUE LAW..NEEDS A VICTIM
needs present an injured party..ACTUALLY HURT by the defendant
and justice is about making it right*

it can do this in many ways
but all appear to end up monetory
inded simply a judges order..is value
recognising its value..monetises it..when banked

of course fools do jail time
for pennies..[value]..when the very judge could have made his order

[juries cant make orders..
thats the only reason any would chose a judge..over a jury]..

but the law has been perverted
and subverted

serving power
that makes the law..the crime

traffic law..tax law..is only for those
seeking an advantage from them...[law only supports advantage not disadvantage]...no benefit..no obligation..too much to correct in one post

but dont be ignorant..get a jury
tel them they ARE THERE..to judge the law PLUS the crime
that if the crime isnt criminal..its by lie..[contract..by lie]
[undisclosed terms]...

just getting a lawyer..makes a ward of the court
[your judged as a legal imbisile...given 'power' to satan..the lawyer..who KNOWS..its not criminal[no injured party]..thus contract law..YOU WERE CONED INTIO CREATING*

by lie...
[ie the date of your birth is heresay
you DONT KNOW it from your own memory
thus when you DECLARED it true..YOU LIED*

but you cant injure yourself..
nor injure a dead corperate fiction
the 'injured party MUST be living entity

let the jury KNOW*
the statute law is the crime!

The only trouble I see with a jury is the general problem of common law trials. The trial isn't interested in 'truth' but a debate between two teams and who won, not trying to establish the truth of what happened and who was or was not involved and were they directly culpible of the actions that occurred.

Also why shouldn't the jury ask questions? Just because the lawyers/barristers question the witnesses, why shouldn't the jurors also be allowed to ask questions. Especially if the two sides have already decided on the result they want for whatever reason and therefore each only asks questions that lead answers they want.

(Accidentally posted to the wrong article)

yes, we can expect the jury to restrain itself from looking at social network sites, just as we can expect them not to read newspapers or watch television during the trial on which they are sitting. social networking sites have existed for a long time, and few problems have arisen. let's expect the best of those who are called to jury duty and who accept the responsibility in a positive way.

the jury is the only way the public becomes involved in the justice system - part from those instances where members of the public are litigants, accused persons, victim/survivor witnesses, or witnesses generally. it is important to preserve this involvement: the courts are isolated enough as it is. the public has a right to be involved and the jury is the sole remaining way in which this can happen.