Re: Sometimes
The jury system or variations of it are the anchor for the justice system in normal society. It prevents criminal justice distancing itself from the people.
I do concur, that a jury of random people is not the best version. In our country we do not have jurys, but the "the people" anchor is provided by 2 lay judges in every criminal trial. Depending of the severity of the case, there are 1 to 3 professional judges and 2 lay judges and they need a 2/3 for an conviction. So the professional judges can never convict against "the people" and they sit, ask and decide together.
The lay judges are nominated by the district, city or volunteers. Drawback: Your term is 5 years with a yearly random shuffle of lay judge pairs and criminal chamber.
My 5 years in a appeals court (the translation does not show the fact, that we are a second full fact finding instance) are almost done and I have aquitted many accused, which were definately guilty as hell (if you ask me in a pub or the court of public opinion), but the state did not meet its burden to prove the guilt. Our lay judges group has a cycle of about 5-6 weeks, when we are the "lawful judge" for trialsbeginning on that day (yes, we did have three that one time, 2 went for several days after that.)
And sometime I see the effects of outdated legislation. I am currently in a trial about animal cruelty through neglect by a farmer, where the PETA observers are demanding his head in the papers , but where the combination of underfunded state attorny and legislation will almost certainly lead to an aquittal unless there is a new revelation in the next sessions. Pollution and littering are still on the table. We will be crucified in the news, but it is the states burden to prove it (innocent unless proven guilty has its weight). I still do not understand, why the state did went this way, instead the Elliot Ness way would certainly lead to some years in the clink.