What do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages to a trial with a jury?

Instead of a
jury, what then?  Bench trials may have their purpose, like proceedings for a traffic violation,
but for important civic and criminal proceedings, juries are the superior system, since
involving a jury limits the power of the judge.  For all the points mentioned, juries have their
problems, but having the citizenry participate in court proceedings serves to underscore the
principle of government by and for the people; in short, it is a democratic institution.  Juries
have to power to determine was is factual, and decide accordingly upon guilt or innocence; the
judge states and executes the law.  However, juries have a key power little discussed which
provide a check on the other branches of government, namely, they have the power of
nullification.  Legislatures are, in theory, random collections of citizens that make laws. 
Juries are a random collection of citizens that may nullify law -- in other words, determine
that a law broken in a civil or criminal proceeding should not be a law at all.  This was to
provide a judicial check on the legislature--that if a bad law is enacted, and people are put to
trial because of it, even if guilty by the codification of the law, the jury can determine that
no crime or civil infraction occurred because that particular law shouldn't exist, and their
nullification effectively repeals that law. This power allows juries to exercise a check and
balance and helps insure a well functioning democratic government.