A jury of their peers

This article tells of "the jury pool from hell" - apparently several of the people who were chosen for jury duty in a case in Tennessee were pretty shady characters themselves (read the whole thing, it's hilarious).

Now, I realize that the Constitution guarantees a trial by jury (article 3, section 2), but people... that document, however much I respect and admire it, was written in a very different time. The distance between the rulers and the ruled was greater, and this particular point was written against the historical background of American colonists being hounded by British judges. The jury was an understandable defense mechanism for that sociey, at that time. In addition, most people back then had a notion of responsibility and civic pride - being on a jury was something honorable.

Today, most people seem to dread the prospect of jury duty (unless we're talking high profile cases, in which jurors may get their ugly mugs on tv, get paid for interviews, etc). Cases are usually more complex and more technical, and they go on for longer. So I guess America needs to consider if it's really such a smart idea to let questions of guilt vs innocence or life vs death be decided by people too stupid to avoid jury duty.

Personally, I don't think so. I just know that if I were innocent, I would MUCH rather take my case to a trained judge with years of advanced law studies behind him than some schmuck off the street who would decide my fate on heaven knows what basis...