Generate text that refutes this claim: Judges are better at delivering justice than juries are.  Juries are not technically trained in evaluating evidence.1 Additionally, judges are trained to recognize and suppress their own prejudices, evaluate information given to them, recognize prosecutorial strategy etc., better allowing them to make objective decisions. Furthermore, some studies suggest that juries actually work against the innocent; a 1979 study found that "more than 5 per cent of defendants found guilty by juries were considered by professionals to have been convicted in questionable circumstances."2This is hardly surprising given that jurors are ordinary citizens who are forced to sit through what are often dull and protracted trials, and who may have little interest in actually listening to what is being said (Joanne Frail, a juror convicted for contempt of court stated that she 'drew more than she wrote [during the trial]').3 Perhaps we should trust in the expertise of screened and trained justices instead.  1Sir Louis Blum Cooper QC, "A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better  2Baldwin and McConville, "Jury Trials"  3BBC, "Juror Admits Contempt of Court Over Facebook Case"
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some
Not only is trial by jury a very important check on the justice system, but evidence also suggests that juries are fair and effective. First of all, as explained in the Opparguments, trial by jury is an extremely important check in the criminal justice system. Eliminating it would be a grave threat to justice. But second, to address the more practical concerns raised by the Proposition, studies actually suggest that juries are fair and effective. Recent UK Ministry of Justice research found that juries tend to be objective and non-biased, and that cases based on the strongest evidence are also those cases resulting in the highest conviction rates.1  1Cheryl Thomas, "Are Juries Fair?"