Is jury system necessary?

There are several opinions as to whether jury system is necessary or not: 

Arguments in support of jury system

Several advantages have been claimed for trial by jury such as-

1. Jury reflects the views of the society because of random selection from a wide rage of population.

2. The opinion of the 12 juries is better than the single opinion of the judge. It will more likely to prevent the individual biases.

3. Juries are barometers of public feeling on the state of law. There is no satisfactory alternative to a lay jury.

4. The presence of the lay jury ensures that the proceedings are kept simple.

5. Corruption related risks will decrease.

6. Society control over the judicial system will increase.

7. The institution will educate people, and the legal consciousness of society will grow.

Arguments against the jury system.

1. The jury system is not suitable for the complex fraud cases and these cases very often cause problem for the lay jury.

2. Juries are often unable to understand the more complex distinction in the law, such as the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.

3. The jury has no qualified legal knowledge and is unable to weigh evidence properly and to understand certain complex matters.

4. The unaccountability of the jury as against the democratic principles.

5. Juries may be biased it is not possible to guarantee that there has been no tempering with the jury.

6. The jury are unfamiliar with court procedure, some time decisions might be based on emotions rather than arguing.

7. A jury system is very costly.