The attitude of many ordinary citizens to Russian justice is ambiguous. Less and less people trust the judicial apparatus, believing that it is not trustworthy, since "everything is bought everywhere". This attitude is negative, since even a criminal who commits dangerous acts is trying to justify, and judges are accused of inhumanity. This kind of mistrust was not permanent. In the Soviet period, the court was the only body that citizens trusted their problems with. Integrity, fairness of decisions and the death penalty allowed to maintain authority.
The jury has come to the Russian system from the West, where democratic principles were above all. Foreign states wished that even when punished the perpetrator had a chance to justify or prove that he was not guilty of a crime. The judicial system tried to share the responsibility for the sentencing to share with the people.
The creation of a jury trial in the Russian judicial system was difficult and with many contradictions, since the court was authoritarian and did not want to share its power with non-professional people who could decide the fate of the criminal in a positive way. Many critics, who, incidentally, were the majority, opposed this institution. They assured that ordinary people can not decide whether a person is guilty or not, as professional operatives and investigators proved this, and judges should also establish guilt, and not people of simple working professions. But no matter how successful the critic was, the jurors took their place in the courtroom. However, there were reservations about their authority.
Immediately it was decided that the jurors would not touch the legal component, this part should be directed by the judges. And the share of the former will lie just the question of whether, in their opinion, a person is found guilty or not. This form of proceedings has been working successfully for many years. Thus, an untried person can not only rely on the court, but also on the opinion of ordinary people, especially if he is firmly convinced of his innocence.
The judicial error has generated many unpleasant rumors, and, what is most insulting, consequences. The moratorium on the death penalty is one of the deterrents in the fight against such mistakes. In Soviet times, there were hundreds of people who were shot, and later rehabilitated. The new Russian judicial system, with an eye to the past, decided to take into account the sad experience and found a solution in adopting the moratorium.
Jurors can prevent a miscarriage of justice, so many call their decision a "golden chance." But it's always worth considering that people who participate are not professionals, their decision is not dictated by knowledge and experience, but by simple human emotions, and there is no guarantee that these feelings can not only not save the matter, but further exacerbate it. Therefore, competent lawyers advise their clients only in the most extreme and hopeless cases to use such an institution as jurymen.