Recently, the UK judicial system has come under question in re: the validity of juries.
The argument, as I understand it, is that asking 12 lay people to assess evidence when they potentially have no real knowledge of how to do that and tend to be swayed emotionally irrespective of the evidence put before them is an ineffective method. It has been proposed that decisions should be made by a judge who has been trained to understand what is and is not pertinent evidence and will, through training, be less likely to be swayed by pre conceived emotions pertaining to the nature of the case.
Advocates for this idea point to other countries which don't use juries, such as South Africa. The feeling is that reviewing evidence needs a trained eye. That there would be fewer miscarriages of justice if this were the case.
I'm not sure. I haven't researched the stats for miscarriage of justice with juries versus without. I would be concerned about the danger of judges being paid to reach a certain decision in a way that can't happen with an unpaid jury. It concerns me that this way may be more open to corruption, and it is interesting to note that those promoting this are lawyers and judges, but I don't really know enough about it.
Since most of us here are from nations with trial by jury systems, what do you think?