There are two methods of determining whether a person being charged with a criminal offense is guilty or not guilty; they can be tried before a judge or before a judge and jury. Each of these methods has its advantages, but in my mind a trial by jury is a better way of determining whether someone is guilty or not. A jury trial includes more than one persons' decision and interpretation of the evidence, it offers a thorough review and analysis of the credibility of the evidence, and it produces an unbiased verdict. These are three aspects of a jury trial that make it a good way to reach a verdict.
A jury trial includes more than one persons' decision and interpretation of the evidence. Rather than having only one judge interpret and ponder the evidence to reach their final decision, without any consultation, there are several jurors who may consult each other and share their interpretations of the evidence presented to them.
Jurors have the opportunity to hear what each other have to say about the case, whereas a judge cannot have a second opinion and must rely on themselves entirely. In the film 'Twelve Angry Men' the jurors share different experiences that they have had and try to relate to the case as humans, not simply as judges. Consultation is a big advantage in the jury system.
Another advantage of a jury trial is that it offers an extremely thorough review and analysis of the evidence. What one juror might have overlooked or mistaken, another could point it out and correct them, possibly changing the final verdict. In 'Twelve Angry Men', one juror relies on the testimony of the eye witness as their single reason for finding the accused guilty. Another juror cleverly points...