If you were accused of a crime that you did not commit, would you prefer to be tried by a jury of six common people or by a panel of three experienced judges?
To be fair, the jury is supposed to be the trier of fact. In theory, it is supposed to examine the evidence presented to it while accepting the interpretations of law made by the judge. It is expected to follow the jury instructions.
I think the jury systems is pretty silly. Having people with no legal knowledge or experience interpret the law to decide guilt and innocence is kind of ridiculous.
That's my concern also is the kickbacks, but 6 laymen are much more likely to be persuaded by a slick-tongued prosecutor too.
Definitely the common folk. The judges probably get kickbacks from everyone they throw in jail.
Good point. Guess it's pretty much a lose/lose situation.
Jury of peers.
Hypothetically, a person could be tried by a hybrid panel. Some of its members would be legal professionals, and some of its members would be selected from the general public.