The analysis also considers whether jurors can be both impartial and informed, whether some prospective jurors must be routinely disqualified in cases involving pretrial publicity, whether jurors should function as the community conscience even if that means that they can flout the law, and the factors that influence jurors to decide for capital punishment. The discussion considers legal and constitutional issues, social science findings, and historical examples to trace the development of the jury system from an intimate institution of small-town justice to the institution of today. It emphasizes how changes in jury practice reflect larger changes in the practice of democracy and argues for the view that supports the jury as a deliberative rather than a representative group. Footnotes, tables, appended background data, index, and chapter reference notes (Publisher summary modified)