Question would you Prefer to have your life put in a bunch of strangers hands,becuase thats what a jury is. A bunch of hand picked civilians, that are selected by random to decide your faith or would you like to have it changed? I personally think this process is ineffective and should end. Two great Example: the (Trayvon Martin )case and the (Casey Anthony )case. Wth! is all I could say when I learnt the Verdict.

I think its the best we have until someone comes up with better

I think witnesses should all be tied up to lie detectors,,lol

but that will never happen

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

http://antipolygraph.org/

They ain't worth the Material they are made of!

No i wouldn't prefer that.....that's why it's an advantage to have the jury on the payroll

RANDOM? you have never been on a jury before have you. Far from random.

there are definitely many flaws in the system.
juries are not selected at random.
they are chosen because they show a predictable pattern of thinking and possibly that they can be influenced.
when you don't fall into that category they toss you out.
the last 3 times I've been there for jury selection, they gave us at least a 65 question written survey on topics related to the case being tried and other relevant factors.
I guess I fall into the oddball category because I was dismissed

Would you prefer one judge?

Selection of Jurors

Potential jurors are chosen from a jury pool generated by(random)selection of citizens' names from lists of registered voters, or combined lists of voters and people with drivers licenses, in the judicial district. The potential jurors complete questionnaires to help determine whether they are qualified to serve on a jury. After reviewing the questionnaires, the court (randomly)selects individuals to be summoned to appear for jury duty. These selection methods help ensure that jurors represent a cross section of the community, without regard to race, gender, national origin, age or political affiliation.

Being summoned for jury service does not guarantee that an individual actually will serve on a jury. When a jury is needed for a trial, the group of qualified jurors is taken to the courtroom where the trial will take place. The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly. Members of the panel who know any person involved in the case, who have information about the case, or who may have strong prejudices about the people or issues involved in the case, typically will be excused by the judge. The attorneys also may exclude a certain number of jurors without giving a reason.

The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly. Really! do you really feel this process is effective. Side note: Just because they were choosen out of the selected few doesn't mean they're any more capable of being fair in a trial to opposed to the ones that are too close to the case. Everyone is full of judgement ,and this why it can never turly be a fair trial. # this to me is as random as it gets. But hey who am I to judge,I'm just another random person sharing my point of view.

Oscar Pistorius.
I think a lot of South Africans would disagree with you.

Well They are welcome to,but I feel strongly about my position on the matter,and just maybe a few others might just agree or mostly agree with what I'm sayn,and if not I'm perfectly fine with standing only in my point of view.

The jury system is as close to perfect as the human mind has been able to conceive. In most jurisdictions, the number of jurors is 12, however, that number can vary. The defendant also has the option to waive the jury trial and be judged by one person in a black robe rather than a cross section of the community. The jury must be unanimous when rendering a verdict. If only one single juror has even the shadow of a doubt, the defendant is not convicted. Any disagreement about the verdict among the jurors results in a hung jury. Additionally, you cite two examples of cases where you personally disagree with what the verdict should have been. Were you in the courtroom for those trials and did you see all the evidence presented to those juries? If not, your opinion of why they reached those verdicts is mere speculation. Spend a day with one other person and then try to get that one person to agree with you about the facts of that day. You will probably have some disagreements. Now put 12 people in a room together and they all have to agree about something they weren't there to witness. The jury system is the most fair.

There is NOTHING random about a jury. The people on the available list have already been through one filter.

The juror selection process removes people who may show prejudice against a particular side of the case, criminal or civil. This fact removes all trace of randomness.

Key word "Most "fair.

Like all filters something still pass through. Nothing is ever 100% safe proof.

If you want perfectly fair, that won't happen. The only perfect man to ever live was executed by a much more corrupt system than we have. Because of the flawed nature of human beings, we need 12 of them to agree, and in the case of a conviction, the defendant can appeal.

At least we can on something.

I'm not sure what this is in response to.

@ Maddog:Btw I'm pretty sure even the juror themselves didn't see all the evidence presented in the trial's that I mention. So at best their opinion is mere speculation.

Referring to the point that things will never be perfectly fair.