Constitutional Issues:

Sixth Amendment: The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, specifying that the jury should be composed of a group of the defendant's peers. Replacing this with professional jurors might be seen as undermining the notion of a "jury of peers" since professional jurors would no longer be randomly selected from the general population.

Seventh Amendment: Similar concerns arise with civil trials. A professional juror system might face challenges under the Constitution because it could be viewed as altering the fundamental nature of a jury trial as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Legal and Procedural Considerations:

Jury Selection: Even if professional jurors were used, the voir dire (jury selection) process could still exist, allowing attorneys to strike jurors for bias or cause. However, professional jurors would presumably have greater legal knowledge or experience, raising questions about how this would affect jury impartiality. Could such jurors be inherently biased due to their training?

Specialization: A key argument for professional jurors is that they would be more knowledgeable about legal procedures and less susceptible to the influence of emotions, media, or biases. But critics argue that professional jurors could become entrenched in the system, developing biases based on repeated exposure to similar types of cases (e.g., favoring prosecutors or defense attorneys).

Practical Implications:

Fairness and Bias: As pointed out in the XO thread, a major concern is that professional jurors could skew in a particular political direction or be subjected to outside pressure. If the pool of jurors is smaller and repeatedly used, they could become targets for doxxing or manipulation, potentially undermining public trust in the judicial system.

Cost: Implementing a professional juror system would require significant government funding, as these jurors would need to be paid full-time salaries, receive training, and have job protections similar to other government employees. This would likely increase the cost of the judicial system, though it could reduce delays in trials by ensuring a constant pool of available jurors.

Efficiency: Professional jurors could expedite trials since they would not require as much instruction on legal principles, potentially cutting down on trial time. However, this could also reduce the thoroughness of jury deliberations if professional jurors become overly comfortable or quick in their decision-making.

Public Opinion and Trust:

Jury trials in the U.S. are seen as a key aspect of participatory democracy. Many people feel that serving on a jury is a civic duty, and any move toward professional jurors might erode public confidence in the fairness of the system. If trials are decided by a small, specialized group rather than a broad cross-section of society, the process may seem less democratic and more elitist.

In short, while professional jurors could bring more consistency and expertise to court cases, such a system would face significant legal and practical hurdles, including constitutional challenges, concerns over fairness, and issues related to public perception of the judiciary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5617109&forum_id=2...id.#48233673)

- in mines

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5617109&forum_id=2...id.#48233690)

That said, our current system is pretty stupid too so maybe it wouldn't be worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5617109&forum_id=2...id.#48233693)