The theory behind the use of juries in the justice system is that a group of randomly chosen citizens will represent the will of the entire community. Therefore, theoretically at least, the community as a whole controls the justice system. However, there is argument in favour of replacing juries with informed experts who are better qualified to serve justice in a group of people, because most jurors 'would rather be elsewhere and lack judgement and expertise'. In contrast, some argue that the existing justice system works as desired, and so should not be changed. In order to examine the merits of both arguments, the advantages and disadvantages of juries must be compared, as must the advantages and disadvantages of replacing juries with experts.

The main advantage of using juries in the justice system is that, supposedly, the views of the community are reflected in this group of people. By randomly selecting people for jury duty, it is hoped that these people will be representative of the will of the wider community, quite similar in theory to a parliament. The reason th

One of the very strong arguments for ending the use of juries in the justice system is that jurors often lack expertise in the legal system, and are inexperienced in a courtroom situation. "Jurors frequently misunderstand instructions from the judge on legal issues, fail to recall critical evidence, and suffer from boredom and apathy during trials". This is a very important and valid argument against the use of juries. A finding in a criminal trial can often have huge impact on the people involved, and surely should be made by a person, or people, who have the correct qualifications to make such a decision. Although Hollywood films exaggerate this, jurors may be subject to pressure from their fellow jurors to come to a decision, or may vote with the majority simply to end the trial, due to the inconvenience that jury duty causes.

In reply to the argument that the jury system works and should not be altered unnecessarily, however, it can be argued that when the system was initially created, the intent of those controlling the justice system was different, and indeed the values of the entire community were different. Those who created justice systems in the past may have been more eager to prosecute, and less eager to conduct a truly fair trial. Because it is impossible to look into the minds of those people, their intentions cannot be known. However, the values of these people were almost certainly different to the values of those controlling the system today. Just as the law changes to reflect changes in the community, surely, it is argued, the system that dispenses this law should also change.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Martin Bryant, , legal system, justice system, juries justice, juries justice system, jury system, knowledge legal system, knowledge legal, elsewhere lack judgement, lack judgement expertise', reform jury system, serve justice, replacing juries, advantages disadvantages, argued system, people jurors,
Approximate Word count = 1084
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)