It's worth pointing out that the US' system of justice and government cares little for the qualifications of the jury:
The US is a democracy (or some variation thereof), not a technocracy.
Whether people who work in specific fields think that's right or not is independent of the principles the US espouses. In the eyes of the justice system, all jurors are equal regardless of skill. They are disqualified primarily by their biases.
I think it is rather unreasonable for people to be doubting their qualifications if we hold them as equal citizens. If they make technical mistakes, I think it's important to consider that they are representative of the mistakes of the people as a whole.
Sure, the US government doesn't reach the technically optimal result every time as a result, but this is the form of government (democracy, not technocracy) we in the US have selected. Aristotle writes quite a bit about the merits and pitfalls of this, and we are quite aware of them.
The US is a democracy (or some variation thereof), not a technocracy.
Whether people who work in specific fields think that's right or not is independent of the principles the US espouses. In the eyes of the justice system, all jurors are equal regardless of skill. They are disqualified primarily by their biases.
I think it is rather unreasonable for people to be doubting their qualifications if we hold them as equal citizens. If they make technical mistakes, I think it's important to consider that they are representative of the mistakes of the people as a whole.
Sure, the US government doesn't reach the technically optimal result every time as a result, but this is the form of government (democracy, not technocracy) we in the US have selected. Aristotle writes quite a bit about the merits and pitfalls of this, and we are quite aware of them.