THE DISCUSSION OPENS WITH REVIEWS OF THE HISTORY OF THE JURY SYSTEM, QUALIFICATIONS FOR SERVING ON A MODERN JURY, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE JURY IN THE CRIMINAL COURT. ARGUMENTS FOR ABOLISHING THE JURY SYSTEM ARE PRESENTED, INCLUDING THOSE CONCERNED WITH THE COMPLEXITY OF THE LAW, THE FEASIBILITY OF JUROR IMPARTIALITY, AND THE COSTLINESS OF JURY TRIALS. THE PRO'S AND CON'S OF ALTERNATIVES TO JURY TRIALS--TRIAL BY A BENCH OF THREE JUDGES, BY A SINGLE JUDGE, OR BY A JUDGE ASSISTED BY LAY MAGISTRATES--ARE WEIGHED. A CASE FOR RETAINING THE JURY SYSTEM IS PRESENTED. IT IS ARGUED THAT LAW IS BASED ON PUBLIC OPINION AND IS MADE FOR MANKIND. LAW IS THE SERVANT OF SOCIETY, AND SOCIETY MUST HAVE A SAY IN ITS ADMINISTRATION. IN AN AGE OF INCREASING GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION, EXECUTIVE POWER, AND COMPLEXITY, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT SOCIETY'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE FUNDAMENTAL TASK OF DECIDING GUILT NOT BE ERODED. ALTHOUGH ABOLISHMENT OF THE JURY SYSTEM WOULD BE UNWISE, REFORMS ARE NEEDED. THESE MIGHT INCLUDE THE RECORDING OF JURY DELIBERATIONS, THE BRIEFING OF POTENTIAL JURORS AS TO THEIR TASK, AND GREATER EFFORT ON THE PART OF JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS TO PRESENT THE FACTS OF CASES CONCISELY AND CLEARLY. (LKM)