爱语法网友仍然脱离语境单独分析一个句子，试图从句子本身得出准确的理解。但经常一个句子的准确理解必须依靠上下文语境的辅助，否则无法判断准确的意义。这个句子就是如此。如果你仔细读了原文整个内容，你就会发现你的直译是含糊不清的，而你的意译是错误的。这说明你其实并没有理解句子的意思。

这样话出自托福阅读材料。以下是原文：

Judges and Juries

A recent study surveyed 3,576 trials in two reporting samples. Over 500 judges cooperated in the study. The survey was conducted using judges as reporters for jury trials. Two major questions were explored in the survey, First, what is the magnitude and direction of the disagreement between judge and jury? And, second, what are the sources and explanations of such disagreement?

The study found that judges and juries agree (would decide the same case the same way) in 75.4 percent of the cases. If cases in which the jury hung are eliminated, the overall agreement rate rises to 78 percent. Thus at the outset, whatever the defects of the jury system, it can be seen that the jury at least arrives at the same result as the judge in over three-fourths of the cases.

The direction of disagreement is clearly toward a more lenient jury than judge.The trend was not isolated to any particular type of offense but was spread throughout crime categories. Additionally, the pattern found was that in convictions, juries tended to be more lenient as far as counts, degrees, and sentencing.For civil cases the percentage of agreement and disagreement was about the same except that there did not appear to be any strong sentiment in favor of plaintiff over defendant (or vice versa) by the jury.

In cases decided differently because the judge had facts the jury did not, generally, these facts related to suppressed evidence, personal knowledge of the defendant's prior record, etc. The factors that made the difference between judge and jury in these cases, then, were all facts that we as a society purposefully keep from juries because the information is irrelevant or because it is highly prejudicial. From the study it can be assumed that the judge, hearing the information, did not disregard it but, quite the contrary, used it in reaching his (harsher) judgment.

The overwhelming number of cases in which judge and jury agree argue for the jury's understanding of the evidence because it is not to be expected that a jury deciding cases it does not understand and a judge deciding cases he does understand (we presume) would not agree in their results so often. Also, judges themselves generally did not identify jury misunderstood the facts as the reason for disagreement.

The level of sympathy that the jury had with the defendant did make some difference. Although generally the jury was neutral, in about 36 percent of the cases the jury had some reaction (positive or negative) because of the personal characteristics, occupation, family, or court appearance. These factors affected juries differently depending on the age, race, or sex of the defendant. Through various statistical evaluations the study is able to state that the sympathetic defendant causes disagreement in ... 4 percent of all cases. Similar figures apply for the unsympathetic defendant.

读完这篇文章你应该能知道，在法官和陪审团的判决不一致占所有案例的四分之一。这种判决不一致体现在陪审团比法官判得轻（more lenient)。后面一段（第四段）解释为什么法官的判决会比陪审团的判决重。

所以，The direction of disagreement is clearly toward a more lenient jury than judge. 这句话的意思为，法官和陪审团的判决不一致，具体表现为陪审团比法官的判决要轻一些。这是句子的意思，不是直译也不是意译。具体文字表述你会做的很好的。