Trial by jury

1. It is not an extremely loose definition. It is guaranteed by the sixth amendment with quite literal wording. Several other countries have the same thing. The idea is that the government shouldn't be able to kill people under their authority alone, But the consent of the people as well. Trial by jury prevents the government from being the judge jury and executioner to court cases. It provides a defendant a chance if they did something that was anti-government. Judges, Being part of the government, May not be considered impartial or unbiased when it comes to these matters. Juries are also selected, They aren't 100% random. Good lawyers can select for likely good jurors. 2. You say the definition of a good jury is the one that arrives at the correct verdict at highest frequency possible. Do you have data that supports an alternative method being superior, Or do you even have data that shows the percentage jurors 'get it wrong? ' If there is a shadow of doubt in cases, They should not prosecute. The problem with the world is there is not 100% conclusive data in many cases. Juries may be biased, But are judges any less so? Unless you have numbers on this you can't even say you have this point in your favor. 1 innocent person being jailed is far worse than some number of criminals going free, To me. Perhaps it is not to you, But I do have data that suggests judges have plenty of bias on their own. If judges have bias, Why would "trained jurors" be any different? 3. You seem to be living in a world where you can wave your hand and a 100% impartial agency could be created immune to money interests and politics that would have trained jurors immune to money and politics and it would be perfect. This is a nirvana fallacy. In reality, Corporations and rich people would have access to these people. If they were elected or around for any length of time to make "juror" a career, They would be found and backdoor deals would be made. Laws would be made to give these people favor. This happens already in a system where there is far less access to these people and they aren't around in semi-permanent slots. There's no way for you to argue an improvement on this with semi-permanent jurors and a government agency in control. On top of that, My previous point would still stand in this case. Government would have full control and be judge, Jury, And executioner. Jurors that travel would not follow the principle of the sixth amendment. These people would not be a jury of their peers. 4. You can argue that a different system may improve on certain problems, But you have to be a bit more specific than "fixes all or some of the problems that we currently have" while not introducing ANY of the problems that would arise because of the swapped system. This is why your argument is a nirvana fallacy. Until you acknowledge the problems and provide data for your position, You can't say that it is the correct system. So the problems stand. You have to tell us what data you have on the efficacy of current jurors, Judges, And professional jurors. You have to tell us how your perfect agency will remain uncorrupted and your professional jurors will remain uncorrupted (problems we don't have in the current system). Without numbers, Your position is feeling-based, Not any kind of factual. You can argue that it may be true, But it would be unconvincing. At best, We could say a single state should try it. You then have to do better than "I reject that my system could become corrupted" when it comes to multi-billion dollar businesses and billionaires potentially corrupting the new jury agency when they corrupt the rest of our government easily enough. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht