I agree the system may be the best there is but it certainly needs some revisions. It would be interesting to know ‘when’ exactly attorneys were given the power to select jurors....also ‘when’ did that selection process slide into the dumpster, rather than selecting those who were competant to those who were not. And sense this seems to be known why haven’t those in the system made an effort to correct it? Course that would be like asking politicians to give up their golden parachutes.
I am still of the mindset that the courts today are not about finding the truth....the “win” is the focus. So the attorneys take center stage rather than the accused...it’s all about them...rather than justice.
Years ago a well respected Judge in my hometown stepped down because he saw that attorneys no longer were interested in discovering the truth..and the antics pulled by most disgusted him. So this has had to be going on for sometime.
Originally, the jury was a Saxon counterweight to Norman power. The ancient inhabitants of the British Isles did everything by committee; in fact, the word, “Thing” originally meant the ruling council, a predecessor of Parliament.
The sheriff (shire-reeve) was the “King’s Man” and usually not a local. The jury members were locals, and on the jury specifically for their local knowledge, and ability to judge witnesses accordingly. The sheriff had the power to seize property and persons, but the judgment of the jury was respected to determine guilt and settle disputes.
Nowadays, people are thrown off juries if they know any of the parties in court, in order to avoid malicious judgments. In part, this is inevitable, because the size of communities is so often so much larger than in olden days. It would be very difficult to get a jury with the local wisdom to judge using experience with the parties. On the other hand, anonymity means that all the work of informing the jury falls on the disputing lawyers, which often devolves into mere games-playing.
So, have we outgrown the jury system? Probably, but without a trustworthy alternative, nobody wants to say so.