Is trail by Jury the fairest way to decide whether someone is guilty or not?

It is the least unfair way there is.

To me, trial by jury is the best solution to prove whether or not someone is guilty or innocent.

When only having one person (a judge, for example) examine the evidence and deciding, they can be very biased in the descision, making it less fair of a trial.

Having twelve people, on the other hand, gives the defendant more of a chance. The jury members all have different opinions and viewpoints in the case. Therefore, they must all come to an agreement.

It is similar with the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government; there are nine "Justices" that must decide if a law is constitutional or not. There are specifically nine in order to prevent a tie between two different votes.

In conclusion, the more people to decide, the more fair the trial is set.

"Fairest", yes. Having a judge decide the case will end up with strict observance of the law, and more of a chance of certain factors not being taken into account. But a "jury of your peers" is a group of non-professional (as in law) people that the factors involved will weigh a lot more in their decision.

Take the OJ Simpson murder case, for example. One (of many) factors was the racism the defense portrayed in the police department. I don't think that's something that would have swayed a judge one way or the other, but for the jury, it was one of the issues they took into account.

How elsa would you judge someone when you live in a civilised democracy,depending on the evidence for and against you 12 people must decide on the information they are given. To decide if guilty or innocent. In some countries you are automatically guilty until proven otherwise this could lead to a very quick death, which is fine with some governments of the world.

In general terms, yes although there are some arguments for specialist juries in complex cases.

We do seem to be getting some dim jurors these days - the guys who ripped everyone off over the 'winter wonderland' that wasn't were prosecuted by Trading Standards and rightly convicted only to get off later because some idiot juror was found to have been texting her boyfriend in the public gallery during the case!

NO -- basically you are being judged by 12 idiots who arent smart enough to come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty

Yes trial by jury is our inalienable right as determined and specified within Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights. The EU dictatorship have ordered their puppet parliament at Westminster to take our rights from us and abolish trial by jury.

Yes it is. A single judge can have inbuilt bias, and a group of 12 men and women are less likely to have bias as a whole.

No, most people are idiots, there is no way a "jury of your peers" have the mental capacity to decide someone's fate.

Look at OJ and Casey Anthony.

Yes, the judge is the person who puts all the evidence into terms you can understand hopefully, from there you and your fellow jurors can talk it out and come to the correct decision.

yes it is you get all types on a jury people from all classes and background cant get any more fair