The Logic and Morality of Trials by Jury

[Masami von Weizegger]

Trial by jury, and in particular, trial by a jury of ones peers, is said, in the United States as well as the United Kingdom and many other nations, to be a fundamental legal right. The implication, of course, is that trial by jury has an inherent value over other trial processes, one that, in theory, helps to safeguard the rights of the individual while restraining the potential of undue influence by the State.

As a logical solution, this has been argued over the years. The idea, as I hear it, is that integrating citizens into the legal system helps to legitimise and validate the law, while allowing cultural norms at the time to influence the proceedings, rather than hold trials in a vacuum without context.

However, it seems also clear that juries can be ignorant, biased and unwilling or unable to consider some forms of evidence. It is also true that jurors are, when we boil it down, untrained laymen. Highly emotional cases, such as those involving rape, murder or children in some fashion, can also distort the entire process.

The counter argument, as I hear it, seems simply to be that the jury system acts as a check and balance on the State, diminishing its ability to unduly influence matters. Some also argue on a statistical basis, saying that in a trial by jury, one biased juror may not make a huge difference, but otherwise one biased judge certainly will.

(Forgive me for seemingly just repeating the bare bones of this subject. I am trying to formulate a strong position myself, hence the creation of this topic.)

In the end, I suppose, it all returns to how much power the State should wield and if sufficient trust exists to extend the control it wields over, in this case, the system of law. I find myself leaning towards the idea that the system of trial by jury is too uncertain, influenced by too many variables, to be a reliably accurate method of ascertaining the accused's guilt or innocence. That a professionally trained judge, if capable of remaining reasonably detached, would likely hold a greater chance of dispensing justice.

I'm sure horror stories from both systems could be freely passed back and forth for a good long while, but I'm interested in hearing and learning more about the arguments for, and against, the system of trials by jury and if they do provide the proverbial safety net they were supposed to give to legal proceedings.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, the entire idea of the trial by jury is just a reaction to the class elitism of the feudal period, when society was strictly divided up into lords and serfs. You didn't want lords presiding over the trial of a serf, because they considered all serfs to be worthless anyway and would not take the trial seriously. The "jury of your peers" was a class thing. It was always assumed that a jury would be more likely to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, but we see in real-life that this is often not the case.

Today, we should adopt a more refined version of this process, because the greater problem is no longer class, but ignorance. Something in between the aristocracy of the past and the TV-addict yokels of today, like a professional jury with training, ethics codes, accountability, and periodic recertification procedures.

[General Zod]

A professional jury would be a great way to make use out of all those freshly graduated law students with no serious job-offers from law firms otherwise seeing how over saturated the law-field is.

[Simon_Jester]

Zod's suggestion is interesting.

I think most of the problems with the jury system result from flaws in the selection process: juries are disproportionately made up of the kind of people who can't figure out how to avoid jury duty, the kind of people who enjoy sitting on juries, and the kind of people that the lawyers on both sides expect to be able to sway easily.

The fundamental concept of having a group of brains to judge the defendant instead of a single brain is sound, I think. I would draw an analogy to the modular redundancy used in computing. It's never going to be a perfectly reliable system, but if you use even adequate-grade brains in the jury, it's likely to be as good as you could get even by going out of your way to find exceptional single jurists.

[Stark]

If you think trial by jury is like modular redundancy you're an idiot.

Mike already knows this, but the biggest problem with professional jurors (which isn't a new idea) is simply that the tabloid press will demonise the shit out of it. People will hate it, because as much as they hate jury duty in America (for some reason) they like the tribal bullshit it allows like 'fuckem he's black'. The legal profession may even hate it because they won't be able to stack juries. It might be a good idea - holy shit, law administered by people who know fuck-all about the law - but it'd run into all kinds of problems.

[Bellator]

Some of my American friends have been surprised to hear that the country of my birth (and a great number of other European countries) do not have juries.

American ignorance of the outside world aside, it made me wonder how well the two systems stack up. Have there ever been studies on this subject?

[General Zod]

Some of my American friends have been surprised to hear that the country of my birth (and a great number of other European countries) do not have juries.

American ignorance of the outside world aside, it made me wonder how well the two systems stack up. Have there ever been studies on this subject?

Juries consistently result in false convictions, though I admit I'm not aware of anywhere with exact statistics offhand. Quite frankly if I was on trial for a serious crime and knew I was innocent? I sure as fuck wouldn't want a jury-trial.

[Simon_Jester]

If you think trial by jury is like modular redundancy you're an idiot.

I think a good jury would be like modular redundancy- not a perfectly reliable way of avoiding errors, but a way of reducing the odds that some specific flaw in a single module will screw up the final result. It does nothing to protect against hardwired faults in the system as a whole, or against common faults present in all your modules, but it's at least some insurance against idiosyncracy.

I think the American system tends to fail not because juries are an intrinisically immoral or illogical idea, but because the system is bad at selecting good juries. Obviously, if I select the crappiest available modules for my modular-redundant system, I'm going to wind up with a crappy system. And the American system of jury selection does encourage lawyers to select for crappy modules- the ones that are easy to persuade and irrational.

But that's a fault in the quality control, not a fault in the design.
_______

I also think that I am not an idiot.

[Lord Insanity]

Juries consistently result in false convictions, though I admit I'm not aware of anywhere with exact statistics offhand. Quite frankly if I was on trial for a serious crime and knew I was innocent? I sure as fuck wouldn't want a jury-trial.

Why would a judge be any better at not resulting in a false conviction? Even if only one of the jurors is convinced you are innocent, you can't be convicted.

Really I think the problem with the current U.S. system is the "smart people avoidance system" that is designed to circumvent the jury (by making them as unlikely to think for themselves as possible) and stack the deck against the accused. I trust the average judge far less than the average person that should be serving as jurors. It is especially bad when judges refuse to overturn convictions when DNA evidence clearly proves innocence, or even worse refuses to allow the test to be performed when it could exonerate the accused.

[General Zod]

Juries consistently result in false convictions, though I admit I'm not aware of anywhere with exact statistics offhand. Quite frankly if I was on trial for a serious crime and knew I was innocent? I sure as fuck wouldn't want a jury-trial.

Why would a judge be any better at not resulting in a false conviction? Even if only one of the jurors is convinced you are innocent, you can't be convicted.

A judge is harder to sway by emotional pleading than a jury of slack-jawed idiots, so you're taking more of a crap-shoot with juries than judges as it is. Especially when the prosecution will go for the jurors most likely to give them a favorable conviction. A non-unanimous jury doesn't mean you can't be convicted either, it just means you have a mistrial and have to be tried again with a new jury.

[Starglider]

I think a good jury would be like modular redundancy- not a perfectly reliable way of avoiding errors, but a way of reducing the odds that some specific flaw in a single module will screw up the final result.

We don't have 'modular redundancy' in software engineering. That's a hardware concept. You're probably thinking of N-version programming, where multiple independent teams develop separate own versions of same piece of software. It's very rarely done since (a) software got so complex that it has become ridiculously expensive, since you have to use different libraries as well and (b) Knight and Leveson's classic late 80s study that showed that programmers tend to make the same systematic mistakes anyway (can't find a good summary online, but any decent undergrad SoftEng project management textbook should cover it).

It does nothing to protect against hardwired faults in the system as a whole, or against common faults present in all your modules, but it's at least some insurance against idiosyncracy.

This is an argument for having a panel of 3 or maybe even 5 professional jurors, instead of just one judge. It is not an argument for a 10+ person jury (Scottish law insists on 15!).

A professional jury would be a great way to make use out of all those freshly graduated law students with no serious job-offers from law firms otherwise seeing how over saturated the law-field is.

Please don't. The existence of a vast horde of parasites trying to create work for themselves by encouraging frivolous lawsuits and lobbying politicians to make legal systems ever more convoluted is bad enough. Guaranteeing them an income is just going to make even more people pile into the field.

[Simon_Jester]

But a judge will still have strong idiosyncratic biases. And if the judge is biased, in a nonjury system ("the defendant is clearly a criminal type"), there's no counterbalancing factor.
_________

We don't have 'modular redundancy' in software engineering. That's a hardware concept. You're probably thinking of N-version programming, where multiple independent teams develop separate own versions of same piece of software.

Actually, I was thinking of modular redundancy, but N-version programming is interesting too.

You see, my first argument for juries is that if there's a brainbug in one brain, and that one brain has sole responsibility for making the call, you're screwed. IF{/b] you have a good system for selecting jurors, a group of brains will generally not be dominated by people who all have the same brainbugs. So you actually have multiple 'units' running the 'to convict or not to convict' judgement in parallel, in hopes of suppressing flaws specific to any one unit.

This can be compared to either modular redundancy or N-version programming, but I was thinking of the former.
_________

It does nothing to protect against hardwired faults in the system as a whole, or against common faults present in all your modules, but it's at least some insurance against idiosyncracy.

This is an argument for having a panel of 3 or maybe even 5 professional jurors, instead of just one judge. It is not an argument for a 10+ person jury (Scottish law insists on 15!).

A panel is better than a singleton, I agree. Given a choice between a panel of professional jurors and one professional juror, I will always favor the panel.

But that's where my second, closely related argument comes in. I prefer juries to panels because I also worry about systematic brainbugs that arise in the class of professional jurors. That can happen because of their professional experience (seeing lots of criminals is likely to leave you with some nasty biases against people who remind you of the criminals you've seen), or because they're all being drawn from the same economic or racial background (which can happen).

It's easier to get a homogeneous sampling with a jury, which makes it easier to get a judgement free of random bugs specific to individuals or classes.

On the other hand, the professional jurors have a more thorough grasp of legal principles and hopefully are trained and selected for the ability to set their biases aside. So I think a panel system will work, and I don't think it's fundamentally wrong. I just prefer jurors and don't think juries are a stupid or immoral concept.

[Starglider]

Actually, I was thinking of modular redundancy, but N-version programming is interesting too.

The former is not an appropriate analogy. It is designed to correct for hardware errors, usually at the instruction level (e.g. Saturn guidance computer, 'lockstep mode' in modern mainframes etc). The brain already has the equivalent of this, and mentally ill people aren't supposed to get onto juries. Jurors making reasoning errors is much more equivalent to software problems, in its statistical distribution pattern, than hardware failures.

But that's where my second, closely related argument comes in. I prefer juries to panels because I also worry about systematic brainbugs that arise in the class of professional jurors.

Such as? Legal professionals are actually trained to overcome systematic brainbugs that all humans have by default. Even in a watered down form, this is far more valuable than having both a farmer and a plumber on the jury (the investment banker will have gotten out of jury duty somehow).

or because they're all being drawn from the same economic or racial background (which can happen).

Criminal prosecutions have been getting steadily more complex; both the law and the evidence. The average IQ of juries is significantly below 100, due to the more intelligent and successful people finding it easier to dodge jury service. Do you really want these people judging you with no legal training, particularly when lawyers have long since got emotional manipulation of naive juries down to a finely practiced art?

[JBG]

"The average IQ of juries is significantly below 100, due to the more intelligent and successful people finding it easier to dodge jury service."

In NSW, as a solicitor, I am not allowed to sit on a jury. Simpliciter. I haven't checked but I'd guess that one of my roles, a Local Court Registrar, would also disqualify me from sitting on a jury.

Mike's comments on the origin of the concept of juries is pertinent but over the years the system - note bene, in NSW - has evolved into one where the jury is the tribunal of fact and the judge is the tribunal as it were of law. But the jury only hears evidence allowed by the judge as set out in the Evidence Act. Further, prior to retiring to consider their verdict the jury gets "directions" from the judge as to what weight, at law, can be placed on each piece or aspect of the evidence and, probably more importantly, what conclusions, again at law, can be reached through a consideration of such evidence.

So the jury is fairly heavily shackled.

Personally, I consider juries to be a waste of time and money, notwithstanding some experience of the foibles and idiosyncracies of judicial officers that I have appeared before or worked closely with. There are too many "block" exemptions from jury duty and the jury selection process, which I've been involved with, is cynical in the extreme. If you have a good system for appointing judges that results in consistent quality of said judges - and I by no means refer to voting for judges, let alone prosecutors - then juries are as useful as a bicycle is to a fish.

[Thanas]

If you think trial by jury is like modular redundancy you're an idiot.

Mike already knows this, but the biggest problem with professional jurors (which isn't a new idea) is simply that the tabloid press will demonise the shit out of it. People will hate it, because as much as they hate jury duty in America (for some reason) they like the tribal bullshit it allows like 'fuckem he's black'. The legal profession may even hate it because they won't be able to stack juries.

I doubt it. Jury selection is more of a black box anyway and I have heard several lawyers tell me that they regard jury selection a waste of time. Or so the defense lawyer with two USSC wins under his belt told me.

Juries consistently result in false convictions, though I admit I'm not aware of anywhere with exact statistics offhand. Quite frankly if I was on trial for a serious crime and knew I was innocent? I sure as fuck wouldn't want a jury-trial.

Why would a judge be any better at not resulting in a false conviction? Even if only one of the jurors is convinced you are innocent, you can't be convicted.

That is wrong. In most cases, the majority verdict is enough to convict you.

In any case, a panel of judges is clearly superior IMO. Not only do they know the law, most of them also know the tricks used by lawyers and prosecutors. So yeah, they should be the ones selected.

[Serafina]

I find the whole idea of an jury disturbing.

You are collecting a bunch of people with no education in the laws at all, and want them to understand complicated juristic problems?
If it is an simple, clear case, you do not NEED a jury. If the case is too, complicated, a jury is more harm than good, because it is unlikely to understand the case.

And a jury opens a wide door for bias, too - they are supposed to use their common sense, which is terribly vulnerable to bias and prejudice.

A jury is only usefull if you need a counterbalance against the judge, because there is an hige class-based bias - and even then, its not that usefull.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, I was thinking of modular redundancy, but N-version programming is interesting too.

The former is not an appropriate analogy. It is designed to correct for hardware errors, usually at the instruction level (e.g. Saturn guidance computer, 'lockstep mode' in modern mainframes etc). The brain already has the equivalent of this, and mentally ill people aren't supposed to get onto juries. Jurors making reasoning errors is much more equivalent to software problems, in its statistical distribution pattern, than hardware failures.

Could you elaborate on the statistical distribution pattern of hardware and software errors?

Criminal prosecutions have been getting steadily more complex; both the law and the evidence. The average IQ of juries is significantly below 100, due to the more intelligent and successful people finding it easier to dodge jury service. Do you really want these people judging you with no legal training, particularly when lawyers have long since got emotional manipulation of naive juries down to a finely practiced art?

The problem here is that both our education system and our jury member selection process suck, which is not intrinsic to the nature of juries.

Disqualifying jury members on the grounds that they know too much about the law or have expert knowledge on the subject in question is like disqualifying building materials because they're too sturdy; it's stupid. I completely agree on that. But I do not agree that panels of jurors are a more reliable system for dispensing justice a priori, in every possible condition of things, than juries. We've had historical experiences with situations where professional jurists were drawn from a class that blinded them to the realities of the cases they dealt with. Or with systems that select judges based on their political beliefs, with obvious results. It can get messy.

Crappy jury selection is worse than adequate judge-panel selection, but that doesn't mean that adequate jury selection would be, too.

[Thanas]

I completely agree on that. But I do not agree that panels of jurors are a more reliable system for dispensing justice a priori, in every possible condition of things, than juries. We've had historical experiences with situations where professional jurists were drawn from a class that blinded them to the realities of the cases they dealt with. Or with systems that select judges based on their political beliefs, with obvious results. It can get messy.

Crappy jury selection is worse than adequate judge-panel selection, but that doesn't mean that adequate jury selection would be, too.

Yes, a panel of judges are a more reliable system for dispensing justice. In today's times, lawsuits are exceedingly complicated and very easily manipulated. Professionals are far more likely not to fall for tricks than non-professionals, wouldn't you agree?

[Simon_Jester]

Imagine a jury that wasn't specifically selected for stupidity, gullibility, and ignorance...

My contention is that having a large set of laymen with input into the judicial process can be worthwhile, if your selection process isn't optimized to find the worst possible jurors so that the lawyers will have the easiest possible time manipulating them. It beats single-judge systems for straightforward reasons. I contend that if your system for selecting jurors isn't crappy, it has an advantage over panels as long as you make sure that professional judges are involved enough that actual violations of procedure (or legal tactics that are blatantly lacking in merit and obviously intended purely to screw with the jury) can be blocked.

I think that the only reason to go from juries to panels is because we can't be bothered to come up with a system for selecting jurors that picks out the decent jurors but can be bothered to come up with a system for picking out the decent judges. That's a practical concern, not an inherent problem with the concept of juries.
_______

None of this applies to the American system, which does select crappy jurors. But that's bad engineering, not a moral or logical hole in the idea of trials by jury. If our system for picking judges were as bad as our system for picking jurors, we wouldn't get good decisions out of the judges, either.

[Thanas]

Imagine a jury that wasn't specifically selected for stupidity, gullibility, and ignorance...

My contention is that having a large set of laymen with input into the judicial process can be worthwhile, if your selection process isn't optimized to find the worst possible jurors so that the lawyers will have the easiest possible time manipulating them. It beats single-judge systems for straightforward reasons.

Why?

I contend that if your system for selecting jurors isn't crappy, it has an advantage over panels as long as you make sure that professional judges are involved enough that actual violations of procedure (or legal tactics that are blatantly lacking in merit and obviously intended purely to screw with the jury) can be blocked.

Why? You are spouting a lot of stuff, but you never explain why a jury composed of laymen and professionals is superior to a panel entirely composed of professionals. It is not like in the past anymore where lawyers all came from a certain class.

I think that the only reason to go from juries to panels is because we can't be bothered to come up with a system for selecting jurors that picks out the decent jurors but can be bothered to come up with a system for picking out the decent judges. That's a practical concern, not an inherent problem with the concept of juries.

This makes no sense.

[Simon_Jester]

Imagine a jury that wasn't specifically selected for stupidity, gullibility, and ignorance...

My contention is that having a large set of laymen with input into the judicial process can be worthwhile, if your selection process isn't optimized to find the worst possible jurors so that the lawyers will have the easiest possible time manipulating them. It beats single-judge systems for straightforward reasons.

Why?

Because at the very least, twelve people are less likely to all want to convict the same guy because he's "a criminal type." Not least because if your selection process doesn't actively suck, one or two of them is likely to be of that same type.

In the American version, of course, the selection process can suck enough that this is actually possible- the prosecutor can in theory drop everyone they deem unlikely to be swayed by the fact that the defendant is an "obvious criminal type" or whatever. But that's a flaw in the selection and screening process.

If, of course, we assume that all judges are necessarily far more unbiased than the average member of society, this falls apart. But I don't expect that to be true. It's damnably hard to suppress bias by finding one unbiased person. I prefer a method that at least has a hope of working in statistical terms to one that I don't expect to work at all.
________

I consider the use of professional judges and no juries to be a technocratic solution- rule by the people who have some specific block of knowledge. In the general case, I prefer democratic solutions to technocratic solutions wherever the issue is of interest to society as a whole and not just to the individuals involved. With juries, the outcome of the trial is of private interest, but the outcome of trials in general is a critical public interest. What kind of things can get you convicted in court matters to everyone, so I'd prefer to trust it to everyone than trust it to technocracy.

However, I'd rather trust it to technocracy than to what the American legal system has now, because we don't have a system that makes "everybody" responsible for court convictions. We have one that gives that responsibility to the dregs of "everybody," after specifically filtering out as many people with intelligence and knowledge as possible.

Speaking generally, I don't trust technocrats. Most historical groups that claim(ed) that their professional knowledge and abilities gives them better standing to set policy than the aggregate of the public made a lot of decisions that were, in my eyes, wrong. I don't expect us to be better off for giving them another chance.
_______

Why? You are spouting a lot of stuff, but you never explain why a jury composed of laymen and professionals is superior to a panel entirely composed of professionals. It is not like in the past anymore where lawyers all came from a certain class.

Among other things, I don't know what future classes will look like.

Maybe in a century, society will be sharply divided into classes along intellectual lines, with all the lawyers being drawn from a category of people who really love secondary education, spend lots of time on the future equivalent of online forums debating, and so on. Everybody else still has rights, but... what would the odds be of those rights being respected if most future judges spent all their time in small insular communities that get a kick out of sneering at everyone who isn't a member?

Or maybe the government will go libertarian and poor people won't be able to afford to go to law school anymore. Or maybe this recession will hit us so hard that the government won't be able to afford to help poor people go to law school anymore, libertarian or not. I have absolutely no idea.
________

So I'd like my system to insure against that by selecting the people who convict citizens without regard to any possible class lines. Unfortunately, that's not what we have, because right now the system is stacked to select jurors from the classes least suitable to the task. The selection process is controlled by people who have a vested interest in creating a dysfunctional system: trial lawyers.

[Samuel]

I consider the use of professional judges and no juries to be a technocratic solution- rule by the people who have some specific block of knowledge. In the general case, I prefer democratic solutions to technocratic solutions

You are talking to Starglider and Darth Wong, both who are noted to love technocratic solutions on the grounds that they work better. And both who think that "it is democratic" is NOT a good reason to do something.

In the general case, I prefer democratic solutions to technocratic solutions wherever the issue is of interest to society as a whole and not just to the individuals involved.

Er... there is only the specific cases that make up the whole. If it is in the best interests of the individuals or each of them, than it is in the best interests of society.

Speaking generally, I don't trust technocrats. Most historical groups that claim(ed) that their professional knowledge and abilities gives them better standing to set policy than the aggregate of the public made a lot of decisions that were, in my eyes, wrong. I don't expect us to be better off for giving them another chance.

Only counting the misses does that.

Everybody else still has rights, but... what would the odds be of those rights being respected if most future judges spent all their time in small insular communities that get a kick out of sneering at everyone who isn't a member?

Don't lawyers do that now?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just some food for thought: what do you think it would change the efficacy of the "trial by jury" system if the selection process for jurors was not controlled by the trial attorneys? For example, a court appointed professional who screens the juries independently of the case itself. Would this be better or worse than allowing the attorneys to do it themselves?

On one hand, in theory this would prevent the attorneys from specifically screening in such a way as to benefit their client. However, there would have to be some form of oversight to make sure the screener isn't stacking things one way or the other.

EDIT: As an addendum, I am actual in favor of the professinal jurors solution (with the requisite alterations to the U.S. legal system); I am throwing this idea out there as a sort of "middle ground" between those who prefer the technocratic solution to those who don't want to entirely do away with lay juries.

[Thanas]

Because at the very least, twelve people are less likely to all want to convict the same guy because he's "a criminal type." Not least because if your selection process doesn't actively suck, one or two of them is likely to be of that same type.

This is no reason to have a trial by jury - I have never met a judge (and I meet plenty regularly) who wanted to convict someone because he's a "criminal type". At least not in Germany

So hey, try this once more - why are laymen favorable to professionals?

n the American version, of course, the selection process can suck enough that this is actually possible- the prosecutor can in theory drop everyone they deem unlikely to be swayed by the fact that the defendant is an "obvious criminal type" or whatever. But that's a flaw in the selection and screening process.

If, of course, we assume that all judges are necessarily far more unbiased than the average member of society, this falls apart. But I don't expect that to be true. It's damnably hard to suppress bias by finding one unbiased person. I prefer a method that at least has a hope of working in statistical terms to one that I don't expect to work at all.

Then you don't know enough about judges. They are trained to be impartial and to spot illegal lawyering. Your argument has no merit.

I consider the use of professional judges and no juries to be a technocratic solution- rule by the people who have some specific block of knowledge.

I am curious - do you believe that letting historians chose what to write is also a technocratic solution because they have some specific block of knowledge? What about engineers? We routinely let our lives be run by people who have some idea what they are doing. I fail to see how this is especially technocratic.

In the general case, I prefer democratic solutions to technocratic solutions wherever the issue is of interest to society as a whole and not just to the individuals involved. With juries, the outcome of the trial is of private interest, but the outcome of trials in general is a critical public interest. What kind of things can get you convicted in court matters to everyone, so I'd prefer to trust it to everyone than trust it to technocracy.

Lawyers write the laws, laywers chose who to charge with what, lawyers make all the relevant arguments. The process is already technocratic.

And please explain how it is undemocratic if you have democratically confirmed judges and prosecutors.

Speaking generally, I don't trust technocrats. Most historical groups that claim(ed) that their professional knowledge and abilities gives them better standing to set policy than the aggregate of the public made a lot of decisions that were, in my eyes, wrong. I don't expect us to be better off for giving them another chance.

Generalization fallacy and a false dilemma to boot. It is also deeply wrong - you first have to demonstrate that layman would have made better decisions in the first place.

Why? You are spouting a lot of stuff, but you never explain why a jury composed of laymen and professionals is superior to a panel entirely composed of professionals. It is not like in the past anymore where lawyers all came from a certain class.

Among other things, I don't know what future classes will look like.

That's a bad argument to make. I don't know if I will die tomorrow, does that I mean I should not go out today?

Maybe in a century, society will be sharply divided into classes along intellectual lines, with all the lawyers being drawn from a category of people who really love secondary education, spend lots of time on the future equivalent of online forums debating, and so on. Everybody else still has rights, but... what would the odds be of those rights being respected if most future judges spent all their time in small insular communities that get a kick out of sneering at everyone who isn't a member?

So let me get this straight you are arguing - against a proven idea that works in the majority of the western world and which has never developed into any kind of horror scenario you describe - on the basis of a hypothetical? Are you serious?

Or maybe the government will go libertarian and poor people won't be able to afford to go to law school anymore. Or maybe this recession will hit us so hard that the government won't be able to afford to help poor people go to law school anymore, libertarian or not. I have absolutely no idea.

More hypothetical nonsense.

So I'd like my system to insure against that by selecting the people who convict citizens without regard to any possible class lines. Unfortunately, that's not what we have, because right now the system is stacked to select jurors from the classes least suitable to the task. The selection process is controlled by people who have a vested interest in creating a dysfunctional system: trial lawyers.

You are seriously misrepresenting many trial lawyers I know.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I wonder if our European commentators are also aware that in many of these United States the position of judgeship is an elective office, so that crimes tried by state and local courts are tried by the winners of a political campaign rather than by selected civil service professionals. Obviously there are certain criteria you have to meet before you can even stand for election to a judgeship, but they aren't especially daunting. This is how you end up with people like Judge Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, who was of the opinion that the state should discriminate against gays and prosecute them for homosexual acts, and who became most famous for placing a monument to the Ten Commandments outside his courthouse and then defying a federal court order to remove it, forcing the governor to dismiss him.

My point is that large sections of America are a long way from even the starting point of a professionalized or "technocratic" judicial system.