Everyone is entitled to an opinion. BUT This statement is painting with too broad a brush. The Founding Fathers knew what it was like to have trials by a professional, a judge, who would be a "rubber stamp" for the prosecution. They didn't want to leave cases brought by the Crown decided by those appointed by that same Crown.
I have spent 25 years both prosecuting and defending criminal cases and believe in the jury system in this country. Yes, there are cases where it seems justice is not done, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
I hope if you are ever called to jury duty, you will inform the judge and lawyers your opinion about juries in voir dire. Not just the guilty seek juries. The right to a jury was important enough to be put in the Bill of Rights. Don't throw out a sacred right because you don't like the result in a couple of high profile cases.
I don't want to throw the jury system out, I am a para-legal, and I would request a bench trial if I was innocent.
And I would advise anyone who is guilty choose a jury trial.
And I have maintained this for 20 years.
In my opinion the system is designed to eliminate many excellent jurors. For my purposes an excellent juror is one who has good common sense and strives to evaluates evidence analytically without getting emotionally wrapped up in it. Touchy-feely emotional jurors are a headache and a hindrance because you have to spend so much time finding ways to package the evidence so that it appeals to or counters defense appeals to their gut and their biases (which they always deny that they have).
I would rather try my case before, and be judged by, an analytical juror who admits he or she has biases but will strive to set them aside, than by an emotional juror who claims he or she loves or respects all of God's children, has no biases, and just wants to do the right thing.