Why the Jury System Makes the Justice System Unjust
Twelve random strangers deciding your fate is gamble, not justice.
Justice.
An overused word we stopped questioning. All while it’s not just a fundamental — it’s the fundamental of society. It’s where you set the rules and define how society must function.
And in jurisdictions where common law prevails — remnants of the British Empire — the jury system is treated like a sacred cow.
You’re not supposed to criticize it. Criticizing it is framed as criticizing democracy itself.
But democracy is not a universal remedy that magically makes everything better.
Truth is not decided by majority vote. And justice shouldn’t be either.
And ironically, democracy is supposed to protect us from having truth determined by majority vote — just as science relies on evidence rather than popular support to establish what is true.
Let me explain.
Why the Jury System Started in the First Place
You cannot talk about the fairness of the jury system without first talking about its history — how it evolved as a remedy to address real problems.
The idea of the jury system emerged in medieval England in the 12th century as protection against unchecked royal power. At the time, kings controlled the courts, and judges answered to the Crown. If the king wanted you punished, you were almost certainly punished.
Instead of a government official deciding guilt alone, a group of local citizens would weigh the accusation. In small communities, these people often already knew the facts; they knew the accused, they knew the families, they knew the context.
It was a shield to protect individuals from the state by separating the judicial branch from the executive.
By the 13th century, this principle became embedded in English common law and spread throughout the British Empire. It later became central to American constitutional identity. The jury was framed as a bulwark against tyranny — a way to prevent the state from crushing individuals without community consent.
When legal systems were primitive, when kings were unpredictable, and when centralized authority was dangerous, involving ordinary citizens was a stabilizing force.
For its time, that made sense. Decisions were based on interpretation — whether a witness seemed trustworthy — rather than on hard evidence like forensic science.
The question is whether the jury system is doing more harm than good today.
Randomness Is Not Fairness
Let’s start with the most obvious problem with the jury system — the one almost everyone admits: you cannot predict what a jury will decide.
Truth is binary.
Either something happened or it didn’t.
You have the court procedure, you have the evidence, you have the facts presented. If the system were working properly, the outcome would be predictable. The same evidence should lead to the same result.
If the outcome depends on which random strangers happen to sit in that box, then the result becomes unpredictable, which is what we have.
The core of the jury system is randomness.
Twelve citizens, no training, no legal education, no forensic background, no requirement to understand probability, psychology, or scientific methodology.
They are given complex evidence — DNA reports, financial records, expert testimony, contradictory witness statements — and then told to apply a legal standard that no one can define precisely: “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Emotion Wins More Than Evidence
Trials are not logic competitions. They are storytelling contests where two sides compete to see who can persuade — or manipulate — the jury more effectively.
Both prosecutors and defense attorneys tell stories, knowing very well that jurors respond to narrative far more than to technical detail.
A grieving mother on the stand will outweigh a statistical argument.
A confident expert will overpower a cautious one.
A dramatic closing statement will linger longer than a footnote in a forensic report.
Judges are trained to separate emotion from legal reasoning.
Jurors are not.
And once emotion enters the room, objectivity leaves quietly.
Ironically, in real expertise, confidence can be a warning sign. The true expert understands uncertainty, knows the limits of the evidence, and admits what cannot be known. But in a courtroom, certainty wins. The expert who sounds most convinced often carries more weight than the one who speaks with nuance.
Bias Doesn’t Disappear Because You Swear an Oath
Jurors swear to be impartial as if that doesn’t erase bias.
Statistics say race, gender class, attractiveness, even clothing influence verdicts.
A well-dressed defendant looks “responsible.”
A poor defendant looks “suspicious.”
A calm witness is “credible.”
A nervous one is “hiding something.”
These reactions happen automatically.
The jury system assumes that ordinary citizens can walk into a courtroom and suddenly detach from every subconscious bias they carry from life.
That’s unrealistic.
I can admit this personally. When something happens to someone from the middle class, it affects me more than when it happens to someone from the lower middle class. I relate to the former more easily. If they become the victim, it feels like it could happen to me. The latter feels more distant.
I’ve worked on that, and I believe I’ve improved.
That said, we are often blind to our own biases. The fact that we think we’ve overcome them doesn’t mean we have.
Now I’ll ask you an uncomfortable question: If the Titanic had carried only third-class passengers on its maiden voyage, would we still talk about it the same way today?
Another one: If, during an invasion, up to five hundred thousand Europeans had died — directly or indirectly, through the collapse of infrastructure or the spread of endemic disease — would we have reacted the same way we did when it was Iraqis? Or would we have cared more because they looked like us, lived like us, and felt closer to us?
Tragedy hits differently depending on who it happens to.
And jurors are not immune to that instinct.
The Group Pressure Problem
We pretend deliberation rooms are temples of reason, but they are more social environments.
Strong, persuasive personalities dominate. People who see the world in black and white — ironically, one of the least reliable segments of society — take over. Quiet jurors fold. People change votes to avoid confrontation. Some don’t care enough and agree just to go home.
Group psychology has shown this for decades. Individuals conform. Confidence wins arguments even when it lacks evidence. Exhaustion lowers resistance.
Now imagine that dynamic deciding whether someone spends thirty years in prison.
You are not getting pure logic in that room.
You are getting negotiation, fatigue, compromise, and personality dominance.
That isn’t justice.
That’s social dynamics.
The Illusion of Protection
Supporters say juries protect citizens from government abuse.
In theory, yes. Jurors can refuse to convict under unjust laws.
In reality, jurors are instructed to follow the law as written. Judges limit discussion of nullification. Most jurors do exactly what they are told.
The supposed shield against tyranny is heavily managed.
At the same time, history shows that juries have protected injustice as often as they have resisted it. All-white juries. Biased acquittals. Convictions shaped by public hysteria.
Furthermore, in non-jury systems, judges are tested on their neutrality. Allowing your personal life or worldview to determine decisions is unacceptable. The outcome of a case cannot depend on the individual judge.
Furthermore, the judge decides what evidence may be presented to the jury. If decisive evidence proving guilt was improperly collected — for example, without a search warrant — it is something the jury will never know about. Instead of penalizing the police officer while acknowledging the evidence, the system often proceeds as if the evidence does not exist. As a result, even serial killers may be found not guilty and freed to kill again.
Is this protecting individual rights, or is it intentionally acting blind and careless about the safety of society?
Why the System Works Better for the Wealthy
This is probably a key reason why no one is talking about the jury system. It works better for the rich.
The jury system operates within an adversarial structure in which persuasion and preparation shape outcomes, and both are strongly influenced by financial resources. A wealthy defendant can hire experienced trial attorneys, retain independent experts, and devote significant time and strategy to shaping how evidence is presented and interpreted — basically, how to manipulate those twelve people most effectively. That level of preparation does not guarantee acquittal, but it increases the ability to challenge claims, create doubt, and control narrative momentum in ways that matter inside a courtroom.
Defendants with limited means face structural disadvantages that are not theoretical but practical. Public defenders often carry heavy caseloads, access to independent experts may be limited, and pretrial detention can restrict preparation while increasing psychological pressure. When bail cannot be afforded, stability and strategy suffer. Over time, these constraints influence not only how a case is built, but how it is perceived.
Because jury trials involve uncertainty, economic inequality interacts directly with risk. Those with resources can afford to contest charges fully and endure prolonged proceedings, while those without may accept plea agreements to avoid unpredictable outcomes. Jurors evaluate evidence as it is presented to them, and presentation depends on preparation. When preparation depends on wealth, inequality outside the courtroom inevitably shapes what happens inside it.
So, What’s Going on?
I’m not talking about something theoretical. Ninety-nine percent of the people sitting on death row are poor. Coincidence?
The current system is no longer simply about guilty or not guilty, but about who manipulates twelve people into thinking a certain way, or who manages to select judges who will decide according to their expectations. However, if judges are political, then they should resign with every presidential election so that the new government can appoint new judges to reflect the will of the people.
Is it still justice if we ignore scientific methods and allow twelve non-experts to decide which forensic evidence makes more sense, or how much weight it should carry, based on whether the defendant or the accuser was more persuasive? Is that still protecting individuals’ democratic rights?
Next Up…
That’s all for now.
Next time, we’ll examine why, in a democracy, the judiciary must remain undemocratic—and the difference between a republic and a democracy.
Take care,
Tanner
Good one, 👌