An increasing number of cases have been removed from jury consideration by expanding the types of offenses that can be tried summarily and by reducing the number of contested cases through plea negotiations. There is a general public perception that summary trials are less likely to be fair than are jury trials and that they should be restricted to minor offenses. Some jurisdictions, however, have qualified burglaries for summary trails. This tendency toward more summary trials and fewer jury trials carries the risk of fostering public perceptions that the quality of justice has diminished due to expediency. Various court decisions have encouraged the use of guilty pleas to obtain lighter sentences, all in the interest of reducing court backlogs and costs. Legislation in some jurisdictions has removed some aspects of disposition decisions from juries; e.g., in Victoria, a judge may, after a jury verdict, determine that the crime carried aggravating circumstances that can double the maximum penalty from the offense for which the jury rendered conviction. Legislatures and courts have also provided fuel for jury critics by creating such complex laws and rules of evidence that no jury of lay persons could possibly comprehend them. 48 notes.