America gives any defendant a trial by judge, unless the judge allows a trial by jury. There are certain cases that need a better balance between a guilty verdict and the defendant’s freedom. Murder trials often receive 12 jurors to decide the defendant’s fate, while civil cases often have a judge making the verdict. The issue lies in citizens because they are unaware of the seriousness that presides in choosing another human’s future. Judges should be the only decision makers to choose a verdict which gives a defendant a fair trial in how they will use fact over feeling, they will be focused on deciding the verdict, and they are aware of the moral issues that may come out in a case.
A judge should be the only one able to decide a person’s fate because they use fact over feelings. For
…show more content…
For Instance, the cartoon in document E illistates a man saying, “we, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks.” (Document E). This indicates that lawfully uneducated people don’t understand how to choose a verdict based upon the facts. They will use their biased opinion for evidence. Another piece of evidence lies in cartoon 1, where most of the jurors are unfocused from the trial, while others simply do not care (Document E). With a jury that cares about everything but the trial, how is the defendant suppose to be given a fair trial? He isn’t. The last piece of evidence is cartoon 3, where a dog is being judged by his natural enemies, feline (Document E). These ‘jurors’ all hate the dog and no matter what the evidence is, the dog will be guilty. It applies to our system with the notion that a suspect is hated by jurors because the media accuses them of being guilty before the trial begins. A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the