> Absolutely. With a professional judge (NOT an elected judge!), you're in the hands of someone with years of training in law and justice. With a jury, you've g

> Absolutely. With a professional judge (NOT an elected judge!), you're in the hands of someone with years of training in law and justice. With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street who don't know anything about the law or the tricks lawyers play, let alone what their own rights and obligations are. It may reflect a difference in culture, but as an American, I feel juries are an important institutional check in a democratic society. Ultimately, the law is meant to serve the people, so the people should not just be subject to it, but they should also have an active role in its administration. I think that any deficit in jury quality should be addressed by improving the quality of the people the jurors are selected from, though increased legal education in the public schools. Perhaps the law should also be rendered in plainer language to make that easier. While there will always be legal specialists, I think it's important that the people themselves understand the law to a good degree.