system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The jury system is unfair and outdated

The jury system is a ridiculous way for people to be convicted based on. The public are too uneducated, biased and sometimes just straight up too stupid to make serious decisions about whether people receive life or death sentences.

The example that triggered me to make this post was hearing on a podcast about the case of a young girl in the UK who was being molested by her dad. She told her mum, and her mum didn’t believe her, so she left her Skype camera on in her bedroom and filmed her abuse. Problem was, the footage only showed his hands and forearms, so forensic anthropologists were brought in to examine the footage and see if it could be used as evidence against the father, or if the perp was someone else. Turns out, yes it can, the infrared light from filming in the dark highlight the incredibly unique vein pattern that every individual has, showing that it did in fact match the dads hands and was incredibly unlikely to be anyone else. This incredibly compelling scientific evidence was presented to the jury... who found the dad not guilty. When the forensic scientists asked the jury why were they not convinced by the evidence? They replied that the science was fine they just didn’t believe the girl because she didn’t break down and cry or anything when telling them what happened. Any psychologist can tell you that you can not take any valuable information from a persons reaction to an emotional/ traumatic event as everyone reacts differently, yet jurors are not educated on that and are allowed to make horrifying decisions based on their own personal bias.

Another example of them using emotions as a measure of guilt is the case of Lindy Chamberlain (dingo stole my baby case) in which every single one of the witnesses to the event (of which there were many as it was a campsite) said it was a dingo, yet the jury made their decision based on what they deemed an inappropriate emotional response. Similar to this is the treatment of Kate McCann (Madeleine McCann’s mum) by the media to the point where people have determined her guilt based on this and not sympathised with the loss of her child (please don’t debate their guilt in the comments I’m merely talking about the emotional side of it).

The most famous case backing up my argument is the OJ case where the lawyers intentionally played on the jurors gullibility and gave them a show trial, causing them to discount DNA evidence which today we think is absolutely horrifying now we know how accurate it is, yet they were allowed to discount it, and as a result set a murderer free. The field of examining the vein patterns on hands as forensic evidence is a relatively new field, in 10 years will we also be looking back in horror at the idiot jurors who didn’t take the evidence seriously in the early stages? What about future forensic methods? 

One last case example I think is worth mentioning, is the 6 trials of Curtis flowers, 6 all or almost all white jurors who were making their decisions based on their own obvious biases, with no real evidence, hence why his convictions were overturned all 6 times because they were so blatantly unfair. Yet now he might be tried a 7th time by a jury, because that obviously worked so well the last 6 times, maybe THIS time justice will be served right? 

I don’t trust some of the people I grew up around to remember to feed themselves yet they’re eligible to serve on a jury? Justice is in their hands? Why has no one revised this ridiculous system? Jurors are regular people with no guarantee of education. Telling them they can’t be biased in their decision, and to be fair, and to consider the evidence obviously isn’t enough. Having a jury selection process to filter out bad options isn’t enough. It needs to be educated people who are making these serious decisions about people lives, they need to understand the law, understand basic psychology, and they need to be scientifically literate and understand how to interpret forensic evidence in a reasonable and fair way.
gpt
In each case you mention there were unique circumstances.  In the first case the prosecutor clearly didn't educate the jury well.  In the second case the defense didn't.  In the OJ case as well as the other case you mention it was systemic racism.  

Most cases never get to a jury these days.  In the cases that do it isn't the jury's responsibility to be educated, it is counsel's job to educate them.  

You are advocating professional jurors.  If counsel knew the jury pool personally you can gaurantee corruption of the system would soon follow.

I disagree with you.