It is a persistent attempt to exercise more control over outcomes than the situation permits, and that can be considered a clinical definition of an authoritarian personality disorder. We must keep in mind the reason we have a jury system. It is not just to encourage public participation in the legal system, or to get a judgement that will be more acceptable to the parties. The Founders adopted the jury system because legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers and agents, cannot be trusted to be competent or impartial. That does not mean the Founders thought randomly-selected citizens are intrinsically more talented or virtuous than legal professionals, but they are moving targets, who appear in the process, do their jobs, and leave it, usually too quickly to be effectively compromised.
Legal professionals are stationary, and as such prime targets for the exercise of undue influence.
Indeed, by using juries to make the main legal decisions, the legal professionals make themselves less attractive as targets for corruption, and thus protect themselves, the integrity of the legal system, and the confidence of the public in it. In case the Task Force hasn't noticed, public confidence in the integrity of legal processes and institutions is at the lowest point since 1775, and we should recall the events that resulted from that situation. It is not an image problem, but a problem of substance. If the conditions that support the re-establishment of that confidence are not achieved, the future of civic stability is doubtful.