> The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts ma

> The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In the jury system, juries are charged with answering questions as to the facts, and judges are charged with answering questions as to the law. It makes full use of the judge's expertise in the law as well as a small sample of society's expertise in human nature and the human experience. > Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Or put another way, someone who is technically guilty, but under circumstances where conviction of the technical violation would be unconscionable. > Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. Without getting into the merits of the obviously subjective argument here, it's not clear that the conclusion follows even if we grant the assumption. The superior justice system of a non-jury country might be perfected yet further by introducing juries.