system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: A jury should not be a group of laymen. It should be comprised of experts who would actually understand the evidence presented.

Jurors should be selected based on their expertise, depending on the nature of the trial. If it's a murder trial, a jury of forensic experts should be chosen to determine whether the evidence points to a guilty verdict. If it's a financial fraud trial, a jury of financial experts should be chosen to determine whether financial fraud actually took place.

Far too many trials end up being about the lawyers appealing to emotion and softening the jury because they know the jury probably wouldn't actually understand the case. As a layman, if two opposing forensic experts present evidence for and against the defendant, I wouldn't know who to believe because it's not my area of expertise. I'm left having to choose which expert to believe. It shouldn't be up to laymen. It should be up to people who actually understand the evidence.
gpt
This is not the point of juries. Juries are peers of the defendant, and their purpose is to provide an impartial ruling based on the facts presented to them.

If there are technical issues that the jury needs to understand then expert witnesses are called to explain the intricacies to the jury. If it is unclear which of two competing witnesses is correct then either the defence or the prosecution or both have failed to present their case properly.

Think of it this way: if there are two expert witnesses who present opposite sides of the case, how would you decide which of them to have on the jury? Surely each side would argue to have their preferred expert sit on the panel?

The precise purpose of juries is that they have no special understanding; they are a stand-in for the "man on the street".