The Jury system is not in need of reform. It has been in place since the 13th Century. It is a testament to it's strengths that it has been the choice for dispensing justice for so long.

At the heart of the Jury System is the theory that people should be allowed a trial by their peers. These peers need to be a random selection of 'layman' members of the community. This may seem obvious, but those who seek reform to the jury system don't think so.

If the suggested reforms to the system, such as specialist juries, or specialist foremen, are put into plcae, the jury will not truly represent the whole community.

Specialist juries will be no different to judges or magistrates deciding cases. They will be members of the legal profession t

hat have seen many cases and it would be impossible for them not to relate a case to a similar previous case, clouding their judgement. All of the specialist jurors would be from the same kind of background, so it would be in no way an accurate cross-section of the community.

Another strong point of the current system is that the twelve jurors, as opposed to one judge, stop individuals influencing the decision. A specialist foreman would, even if it was unintentional, guide the other jurors. They would influence the decision and would also have trouble not comparing cases to similar cases they have been involved in before.

The jurors are impartial, or they are challenged if they seem as though they would be impartial. If members of the legal profession are usually ineligible for jury du

Some common words found in the essay are:
Jury System, System Outdated, jury system, specialist jurors, reform jury system, legal profession, explained jury judge, reform jury, represent community, explained jury, jury judge, current system, specialist juries,
Approximate Word count = 536
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)