Whether the Existence of the Jury System is Still Necessary. As the topic of whether the existence of the jury system is still necessary, there are many argues between pro and con. The jury system is a way of having the public involved in the process of justice. Contrary with professional judges, jurors can focus on different opinions among more mortal and humanity aspect, not only on legal aspect. Especially in the criminal trials, which are involved in some crucial causes and results, jurors can according to facts tell the motive of defendant and to decide guilty or not guilty. Although jurors are good helper to cases basic on their common sense as reasonable adults, however, it is also a disadvantage for cases. Jurors as lay people, they use the common sense to judge the case, not by legal knowledge. As human, if without professional knowledge to judge facts rationally, we easily follow our feelings to tell truth or fault. However, this kind or mortal and humanity can be easily controlled by lawyer or affected by other things rather than truth to confuse jurors to make decisions. Professional judges can decide cases by their legal knowledge rationally and will not easily affect by emotions. Furthermore, legal-trained judges can analyze cases legally and they know laws as well, so they can apply laws more effectively. In my opinion, the jurisdiction involves the jury system is better than case decision only made by judges. The jury is combined by different people from our society. In general, they live close with normal people. Juries can understand defendant in different way from judges. Nevertheless, the judge system still is the basic system of case decision made. Juries use their common sense to decide the defendant guilty or not and then judges decide the legal problems, such as sentence and amount of fine. The jury system is a good cooperated system with the judge system. It can make case decisions more justified.