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.