I have been called for Jury duty probably seven times. The prosecution and the defense both have a limited number of potential jurers that can be rejected, and

I have been called for Jury duty probably seven times. The prosecution and the defense both have a limited number of potential jurers that can be rejected, and each time I ended up being passed over. Once, just after my company was sold, I was called while unemployeed and was selected to be on the jury. We were instructed to not speak to the other jurors during the trial, but I had already decided that a stern looking oil and gas attorney on the jury would end up being a law-and-order throw-the-book-at-them type. Once we got into the jury room to decide the sentence I realized how wrong I was. Our first vote was 2 for acquittal (me and the attorney) and the rest leaning towards guilty. The trial wasn't complicated, but I was alarmed that most of the jury had a very poor understanding of the evidence presented. I heard reasoning such as the following: "Well, I'm a Mom and I'm just very very against drunk driving." OK, but what the hell has that got to do with the evidence we heard? There were serious problems with the evidence presented and it took a couple of hours of discussion before it we eventually settled on not guilty. Years later a lawyer here explained to me why the compositions of the juries is so frightening. The juror pool used to come from local property tax records. This was decided to be unrepresentative of the population and they moved to pools based on driving license records. Anyone with a driving license can end up as a juror. Many of the people that don't come up with excuses for why they shouldn't take a week away from work are those that you wouldn't trust with any kind of important decision. I don't know how to fix this.