Jury decisions in courts

[Deleted]

Okay, I know that this will probably cause some excitement about my heresy, but excuse me for that.

I stumbled across the following article at CNN.com:

California's jurors will get orders in 'plain English'

What made me stunned were the following examples:

"...
Misunderstandings of jury instructions are common, said state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George. He pointed to a Washington, D.C. study that showed more than half the city's jurors asked could not define the word "speculate" or misunderstood the phrase "preponderance of evidence," thinking it meant a slow, careful pondering of the evidence.
..."

Now consider this for yourself - half of the jurors in Washington, D.C. - people who are supposed to decide about the outcome of a legal trial and hence the fate of a human being - could not define the word "speculate". Think about that for a minute.

I was always sceptical about the pros and cons of the jury system, but this reinforced my skepticism.

Any historical, constitutional and philosophical considerations about the pros and cons of the jury system aside - what do you think about the practical side? Is there any significant PRACTICAL reason to keep the jury system, any real advantage in PRACTICE which outweights possible cons and drawbacks?

Best Regards,

Fordy

[Donnie]

Yes.

[Deleted]

It based of the belief that people who don't have a vested interest either way can produce a much more unbiased decision. It is very sad that so many people are ignorant of fairly common terms. In this case it is not the jury system that should be blamed, it is the jurors. They are allowed to ask questions about the legal issues. Apparently judges are going to have to "dumb down" the instuctions.