> Anything other than random citizens would necessitate a full time profession of juror and would thus render members of this profession employees of the state in some capacity.
Why have jurors at all ? Over here in the Netherlands people are judged by ... judges (what's in a name).
There was a case in the US where two judges were getting kickbacks for sending kids to a specific detention center for offenses as trivial as mocking an assistant principal on Myspace or trespassing in a vacant building. There's no jury in a juvenile court anyway but this is a case of a judge using their position of power to line their pockets at the expense of the futures of those kids. Not every judge is a good person but at least your lawyer can help pick the jury for you so some of the jurors might be more understanding of your accused crime and the circumstances.
"Kids-for-Cash". "Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella were accused of accepting money in return for imposing harsh adjudications on juveniles to increase occupancy at for-profit detention centers."
How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if an entire jury could be paid actors?
It's a bit silly to worry about that level of conspiracy.
But even if it weren't silly, there are easy answers. An oversight board, or revealing the jurors after the case is decided, or revealing the entire juror pool of 50 some-odd people, etc.
Just release the information afterwards, or notarize something. That's such a trivial problem to solve. How do you "prove" to the defendant that the jury in front of them right now isn't just the DA's extended family and friends?
It isn't just bribing 12, it is bribing them in a short period of time.
If I'm going to do something and want to bribe a judge I have years to research all the judges who might be at my trial (there are not very many). Each will have a different bribe that will work. (one doesn't want his wife to know about an affair; the next is in an open marriage and doesn't care but he has big gamboling debts that you can "take care of"...)
In practice, the police and prosecutor in the Netherlands are both rewarded financially and have an internal culture that glorifies getting convictions. Needless to say, this means they often successfully prosecute innocents, knowing full well what they're doing.
So I guess you can just decide for yourself. Do you trust the state ? People like to answer in the affirmative, even when boatloads of evidence is available that sometimes significant parts of the state, including the Dutch state, isn't even corrupt, but outright criminal for malevolent reasons (meaning police trying to get innocents convicted out of spite, or revenge, has happened more than a few times).
Jury trials provide some (imperfect) measure of protection against such abuses.
Because it limits the power of the state. The state, in the US, does not have absolute power to convict anyone of anything.
The state has for all intents and purposes unlimited resources to pile on charges, cover up exonerating evidence, they can legally lie to a suspect (“we found a witness you might as well confess”), they can strike jurors who would be more sympathetic to believing that police can be corrupt, etc.
The defense doesn’t have an unlimited budget to hire experts, get evidence independently tested, etc.
If you are poor and/or minority, the state can and will railroad you and the jury that holds your life in thier hands won’t be of your peers. Do you think that a cherry picked jury will really be that concerned if some poor Black kid gets locked up for life?
> If you are poor and/or minority, the state can and will railroad you and the jury that holds your life in thier hands won’t be of your peers. Do you think that a cherry picked jury will really be that concerned if some poor Black kid gets locked up for life?
I did say it's an imperfection measure of protection against that. But frankly, the court is just not going to take you seriously unless it's clear that you will appeal any decision you don't agree with it. Sorry but ... that's how the world works. Still, the alternative in force in Europe does not seem better, in fact it seems significantly worse.
If you watch videos of judges in the Netherlands I assure you, first, the prosecutor is essentially the same, and second the judges ... to say that they are arrogant, unsympathetic and frankly assholes is a serious understatement of reality. Prosecutors are rewarded based on convictions, like in the US.
I think this video, even though the source is a bit ... gmrbl (I DO NOT agree with 99% this website posts) ... But this is the reaction of Jaap Smit, judge and vicepresident of the Amsterdam "fast" court, to a camera:
Because at the time the US split from England, there were myriad concerns about judges being influenced by authorities to convict innocent people for political (or personal) reasons.
Why have jurors at all ? Over here in the Netherlands people are judged by ... judges (what's in a name).