Do you agree that juries should be involved in the legal system as they are, or should judges find facts as well? Do you like the jury system, or do you believe that it does not work as intended and a judge is better qualified to make those decisions? I am on and off the fence on this matter. I believe the system works good now with both judge and jury. Of course, I believe it could improve some. A judge is educated on the law. The judge is foused on the law of the case in front of him/her. Listening to references brought forward from the legal side of the case. However, I do believe the cloud of rules, stautes,and other case law being brought front in a trail takes the attention of the judge. The judge will make sure the court in running according to the law, and in proper order. Where as, the jury will be listening with a different set of ears. Listening mainly for the evidence at hand, and the information directly related to the case at hand. Between the judge and jury I believe a person will getting the best chance in justice. The way the system is designed now a person recieves a trail that has been seen form to different walks of life. That could make the difference in guilty or not guilty. Also giving a better chance of the truth to be found, and that is the real reason of a trail to find out what really happened. Right? I would like to see the jury members being chosen by education level. At least an high school education with some understanding of the laws. That's my take on it.