How to view the conflict between the jury's role as a fact finder in the courtroom and the conscience of the community. 请用英语分点回答，尽量简洁。

The conflict between the jury's role as a fact finder and the conscience of the community can be viewed from several perspectives:

1. Fact-Finding vs. Moral Judgment: The jury's primary role is to act as an impartial fact finder, focusing on the evidence presented in court to determine the facts of the case. However, the conscience of the community may influence jurors' decisions, potentially leading to a conflict between objective fact-finding and subjective moral judgment.15

2. Democratic Theory and Practice: Juries are seen as a reflection of democratic values, representing the community's conscience. This can create a tension between the jury's duty to apply the law as instructed and the community's moral expectations, which may not always align with legal standards.10

3. Judicial Guidance: Judges play a crucial role in guiding juries to focus on fact-finding and not be swayed by community sentiment. However, the complexity of the connection between facts and rules can make it challenging for jurors to separate their personal beliefs from their duty to find facts.8

4. Non-Binding Recommendations: Unlike arbitrators, the recommendations of a fact-finder, which could be influenced by community conscience, are not binding on the parties involved. This highlights the difference in the weight given to the jury's findings versus the final decision-making power of the court.4

5. Continuum Between Fact and Law: The role of the jury is often framed along a continuum between fact-finding and law application. This continuum acknowledges the potential for conflict between the jury's role in determining historical facts and the community's moral compass.6

6. Tension Between Reliability and Community Values: The combination of the 'sufficient reliability' test with the reaffirmation of the jury's role as the final arbiter of the weight of evidence reflects a tension between the need for reliable fact-finding and the influence of community values on the jury's decision-making process.7

7. Courtroom Epistemology: The primary purpose of courtroom epistemology is to ascertain the truth or reduce uncertainty in fact-finding. This process may involve minor conflicts between the jury's role in determining facts and the community's conscience, as the search for a correct final decision can be complex and may include abductive reasoning.3

In summary, the conflict between the jury's role as a fact finder and the conscience of the community is multifaceted, involving the balance between objective evidence evaluation and subjective moral considerations, the reflection of democratic values, and the guidance provided by the judiciary to maintain the integrity of the fact-finding process.