Legal Groundup

Legal Studies from the ground up

Application Excercise 5k

Some arguments for civil juries should be abolished:

  • an experienced judge can easily fulfil the role of a jury as they are more equipped in deciding an appropriate verdict and remedy including damages.
  • Judges are knowledgeable in areas of law
  • Judges have experience and legal expertise in dealing with cases
  • Judges are impartial and unbiased

Some arguments against civil juries being abolished:

  • a civil jury acts as a trial by one’s peers.
  • questions of fact are decided by a randomly selected group of people that represents the views and values of the community.
  • A civil jury listens to the facts of a case and evidence presented in court, determines questions of fact, applies the law as stated by the judge, and decides a verdict of liable or not liable on the balance of probabilities, which is the standard of proof in civil cases, as well as decide damages.
  • The decision-making is shared among the six jurors whose role is to be impartial and unbiased when deciding the outcome of the civil case before them in the court.
  • Civil juries do not have to give reasons for their decisions.