ludwig, i envision jurors working from recordings and transcripts. the actual trial would simply be a collection of recordings, wouldn't need to bring anyone to a face to face meeting. accused, victim,witnesses, just speak to camera and answer any questions put by interested parties.

it would be quite different to the feudal holdover we use now, and probably much better. certainly faster and cheaper,and probably a lot closer to justice.

Ludwig , i have no other systems in mind other than the jury. My country adopted the single judge concept in 1994 after abolishing the jury system based on the reason that the public wanted speedy trials .Plus the idea that a lone judge with legal knowledge is better than that of ordinary citizens using their own conscience to judge.

Sure , cases are faster with maybe one judge to evaluate the evidence and come up with a guilty verdict. However , the question of corruption always comes into play . The public always says that the judges serving in Malaysia are corrupt and bias.I'll keep my opinions about the Malaysian judicial system to myself,but i'll have to say that not every system or body is free from corruption

Confidence in the system is a huge factor, whether there is corruption or not. If there is any perception of corruption, then the system is deeply flawed.

Single judges would certainly give that perception much more so than juries. So this is one very big factor in the favour of the jury system.

Even if there is no corruption at all, different judges inevitably give very different judgements on the extent of guilt and sentences for the same sorts of cases. This works towards creating a perception of corruption, or of ineptitude on the part of judges that give particularly lenient or harsh sentences – whichever you happen to disagree with.

Professional juries that are considerably larger than in our 12-person system would be even more inclined to make judgements and give sentences that are comparable between cases.

Obviously I feel that sentencing needs to be the role of the jury as well as the determination of guilt or innocence.

I can’t see why the jury system would necessarily have to be slower or significantly more cumbersome than a single-judge system. Even if it is, the perception of a ‘slow and thorough’ system has surely got to be better than ‘quick and corrupted’.

It would be helpful if legitaem actually presented the reasoning for bothering with his research. Isn't it obvious why juries were invented? Never give the government, or a single individual the power to condemn you to death or imprisonment based on an arbitrary law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Jury_equity

Well i do bother about my research being that it plays a crucial part in my civic participation assessment . BEsides , a lil' knowledge about the trial by jury wouldn't hurt . I don't know how it's like to embrace a justice system that's more trustable than using ones peers to decide betwwen guilty or not guilty .

Besides , i've been wanting to know . How is trial by jury in a way democratic ? Is it because the people are directly involved in administering justice ?

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I AM TOO AWARE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE Constitution did give some guarantee as to a jury and more extensiver then many realise. (See
my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH)
For example NULLIFICATION, where the jury can NULLIFY the law and refuse to convict a person if they deem it to be against the general public’s interest to convict. However, when I was called up for jury service and was shown a video about what a jury is entitled to do, I immediately complained that JURY NULLIFICATION was concealed from the jurors. Well, I was no longer required to be a juror, and never again called up.
What we have now is that juries are forced to find a person GUILTY if there is evidence, regardless that they would have wanted to find the person “not guilty”. That is not JUSTICE! It is no more but judicial abuse where the judges seek to maximise convictions to be obtained.
While the High Court of Australia has disregarded the application of the Magna Charta the reality is that the Magna Charta remains applicable as it is a principle embedded in the Constitution and so the jury usage.
The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to deal with CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTY but the High Court of Australia in the Thomas case purported otherwise.
A jury system is needed as to have sanity in matters, as without a jury system anyone is in the hands of judges who can manipulate their powers, and far too often do.
I would suggest to check out http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au as the person John Wilson is very strong on this issue of Jury also