Are juries necessarily the fairest and most reliable methods of determining whether or not somebody is innocent or guilty?

no

What ele can u do? Let a judge decide?


I c ur point though.....if a woman standing trial is pretty, a few members would proberly let her off.....
[Edited 1/28/05 8:49am]

I guess you're working on your essay?

I would say no. Any human being's thinking is biased and full of prejudice and protectionist reflexes. Of course, this does not mean any form of justice is useless. Nor that juries are worthless. But they are not the summum of objectivity, that's for sure.

This said... it's harder to say what is the most reliable method...Still, in my opinion, you should try to find proof for every crime. Get as much 'objective' facts together as possible.

Good question. But I'm gonna answer, no. Not necessarily. But I love good court case movies. "Runaway Jury", "The Juror", and "Body of Evidence".

MarieLouise said:

That's what I wanted to say...I was just to lazy to try to explain it. Yet here I am posting twice.

if the evidence fits

you must aquit

I was on a jury once. I even got to be the foreman, or foreperson or whatever and lead the deliberations once all evidence was presented to us. Up till then it was a lot of fun. Cause we weren't allowed to talk about the trial until it was all over so when they'd have a recess or something we'd all go back in the room and eat salt water taffy and one of the guys was learning to salsa dance so taught a few of us some steps and stuff. But once we started talking about it I realized that some people are really, really stupid. So no. I don't think so.

No, juries are not always the fairest and most reliable. Juries are called "a jury of your PEERS. I won't expound too much on this because I know I can go on for a long time on this, but PEERS? Just think about that word, people.