The idea of a trial by jury is often criticized due to the lack of accuracy that is often attributed to it. Specifically, multiple sources claim that jurors may be open to biases, yet they disregard the fact that so can be judges. Thus, with only one person making a decision, the threat becomes dangerously large (“14 Important Pros and Cons of the Jury System”). Due to the possibility of personal biases affecting the verdict, a trial by judge must not become a substitution for a trial by jury.
One could argue that the examples of other countries, which have abandoned the system of a trial by jury and have adopted a trial by a judge instead, prove the potential of the latter system. Indeed, the cases of Singapore, Pakistan, India, and Malaysia, which have successfully transferred to the trial by bench system, illustrate the possibility of accepting the specified framework. However, as a recent study indicates, the use of bench trials can skew the outcome significantly in case a judge has inherent biases (Bennett and Blocker 5). Therefore, the case under analysis exemplifies the problem of judge trials as the platform for imposing personal judgments and assumptions on others, thus, making the outcomes of the trial less fair.
Since one person is at the helm of decision-making and being affected by biases poses a significantly greater threat than a biased juror surrounded by eleven reasonable ones, the trial by jury must remain a default court setting. Personal misconceptions and misperceptions of certain ideas may shape the outcomes of decision-making drastically unless other individuals with specific viewpoints participate in decision-making. Therefore, the trial by jury must not be replaced by the trial by judge.
“14 Important Pros and Cons of the Jury System.” ConnectusFund, 2019, Web.
Bennett, Brian W., and Jonatan M. Blocker. “Judge or Jury? Pros and Cons and Factors to Evaluate for Each.” Schinnerer’s 54th Annual Meeting of Invited Attorneys, 2015, pp. 1-16.