Actually, the jury system can also be fairer. A thief who steals just because he is an egostitical, money-hungry bastard is different from a thief who steals because he needs to support his family. They still commit the same crime, but the different reasons for their crimes (which affect people's emotions) would mean that if the poor thief receives the same sentence as the other thief, it's quite unjust on his part.Vahl3 said:Exactly.
Personally I think that the 3 judge trial is fairer than the jury system that we have in Australia. ie The judges are legally trained and will attempt to make a decision purely on the facts of the case wheras a jury will be more inclined to let their prejudices get in the way of the facts. eg. The higher conviction rate of black males and gay/lesbian people in US trials when compared with 'normal' white middleclass trials where similar facts are presented.
On the other hand, emotions can indeed be quite easily exploited. This is where the system of 3 judges is fairer. If you haven't watched Law and Order (best show on TV , well, actually, 4th best after Australian and American Idol and Iron Chef...), watch it and you'll see what I mean.
EDIT: But you can see that we just can't say that one system is better than the other. Now that I'm writing this argument, I tend to think that circumstances determine which system is fairer.
Last edited: