I agree that the desired outcome is for juries to make decisions based on fact and good purpose, but I don't think anonymity helps to achieve this outcome. I t

I agree that the desired outcome is for juries to make decisions based on fact and good purpose, but I don't think anonymity helps to achieve this outcome. I think that a neighbor openly questioning the decision or a business deciding to cut off ties with a morally reprehensible actor are more likely to promote good decision making. If anonymity is desirable, why have public trials at all? Anybody can go to a trial and see the jurors' faces, so what difference does it make? If they were to be truly anonymous (ie, not visible), then how do we even know they're real people?