Problem 1: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors with enough brains to get out of it. I consider jury duty a civic duty, but now I will no

Problem 1: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors with enough brains to get out of it. I consider jury duty a civic duty, but now I will now make sure I properly qualify for an exception because ... Problem 2: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors who will exhibit independent thinking. If you have a job which is based on engineering, you're likely getting struck by the prosecution. I actually watched the prosecution and defense play chicken over who was going to strike me. I've wasted enough hours in my life showing up for jury duty only to get struck over and over and over. Problem 3: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects for jurors who exhibit deference to authority which means effectively "Defendant in the seat is guilty." This is a problem because if the prosecution had a slam dunk of a case there probably wouldn't be a trial. The correct Bayesian prior for sitting on a jury is almost always that the prosecution should be viewed with extreme skepticism. A lot of the problem in the jury system in the US could be solved by disallowing prosecutorial strikes. The prosecution has enough advantages--if you can't make the case with an actually random jury, tough, you didn't have a case and didn't do your job properly.