Please help with the following questions.
Should the legal system continue using trial by peers, or should the system adopt professionals who are hired to seek the facts and truth of a trial? Which would be more beneficial to the legal system, to the victims, and to the defendants? Explain your answers.
I am assuming, since this assignment was presented under the heading of Criminal Law and Procedure that this is only being discussed in the context of criminal prosecution and does not include civil litigation. I am also assuming that this question is in the context of US law and jurisprudence. If either of these assumptions are not correct, the following guidance may be of less help.
The question is asking you for an analysis and an opinion/conclusion that is supported by the analysis. You have to begin by considering how your coursework has already dealt with the issues presented by the question: have you discussed or read about the Constitutional basis for a "trial by jury" requirement? Have you discussed or read about other judicial systems that do not use a jury? ...
This job debates the effectiveness of trial by peers.