The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United States legal system. It is a right firmly rooted in our democratic tradition. The jury system provides a buffer between the complex and often inflexible legal system and the average citizen on trial. The right to be judged by a jury is a right that most Americans feel very strongly about. However, due to recent jury decisions, some critics are questioning the value of this institution. Our jury system is by no means flawless. It is subject to constant scrutiny and debate concerning its merit and its downfalls. As is true in all institutions, juries are capable of making mistakes. Psychological studies have been done on many aspects of jury behavior. Political scientists are also intrigued by juries and the manner in which they arrive at important decisions. Although most Americans believe in the jury system, there has been considerable controversy surrounding it lately. The public has become even more concerned about this institution recently. The outcomes of the Rodney King, the O.J. Simpson, and the Menendez brothers trials in Los Angeles and the dissatisfaction that followed the jury's decisions are three examples of instances when the effectiveness of the jury system has come under fierce attack. From the public reaction to these decisions and others like them, it is very clear that the way in which juries reach their decisions is often as important to the American people as it is to the specific person on trial. Many people feel that the average jurist is not equipped to make the kinds of decisions they are faced with. These critics' suggestions range from restructuring the system up to tally eliminating it. Most average Americans, I believe, feel that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental one, and its guarantees should be honored. These people would argue that laws are inflexible. They cannot deal with the individual circumstances in each case, but juries can take these into account. Still others believe that juries are favorable because they reflect the morals and values of the community they come from. Indeed, many proponents of the jury support the system because of a particular kind of jury bias, the tendency for jurors, to place justice above the law. Opponents of the system argue that juries are uneducated in legal procedures and should not be given the type of responsibility they have traditionally had. These people also argue that juries are biased. In fact, the psychological literature provides many examples of this bias. Jurors are less likely to punish a sad or distressed defendant, as opposed to a joyful one, apparently because the defendant is already being punished emotionally. Some opponents say that although juries are instructed not to pay attention to the media, they are more easily influenced by the news than judges. Critics of the jury system also point out that juries are expensive and are often unable to reach an agreement. They argue that the decision making should be left up to the people who know the law, judges and lawyers. In between these two extremes are those people who agree with the jury system as a whole, but feel that some changes need to be implemented to improve its effectiveness. These people suggest that juries receive instruction prior to hearing testimony. They argue that this would improve the system by providing some working legal knowledge for the jury as well as giving them an idea of what they are to listen for. Research has shown that exposing jurors to the laws involved in their decision making resulted in significantly fewer verdicts of guilty. This finding suggests that lawyers and judges should have the responsibility of insuring that the jury is adequately informed of the legal issues at hand and the laws available to handle those issues. On the whole, though, I feel that the American guarantee of trial by jury is a valuable one