I think the main issue with this case is that the prosecution/court excluded evidence and didn't present the case correctly, even though someone else was _publicly_ admitting guilt in the case and there was plenty of evidence pointing the other way. The jury system could provide relief from this sort of court bias-- _if_ they had the information. So it appears that it is the _system_ that is so frenetic to convict that causes the issue; not the jury [prosecution attorneys tend to think everyone is guilty]. I would agree there is a cultural issue with wanting to convict a lot and firmly believing that everyone convicted by the system must be guilty, but that has very little to do with the jury system.

The point of the jury system is to prevent tyranny, especially that experienced in most European countries that had monarchies and oppressive parliaments where angering the government or monarch, being the wrong religion, or having a different ideology would get you convicted very quickly. At least with a jury of your peers you have a chance of getting let off from trumped up charges. Europe _might_ not have the same problems currently, but still nice to have a system that could prevent some egregious things... perhaps including this one.