If only they were actual peers. Many of the smart ones know what to say to get out of being on a jury. There are so many people with biases too, and many don't get filtered out because they don't even realize that their belief is based on bias.
I believe in supremacy of justice as I understand it over a written rule (I know it is flawed but this is me). If I feel that person will be punished unjustly then screw the law and I would vote for nullification as it is my right. I think this will stop from being selected as a juror.
I think this would be a very tempting option for me, if I ever found myself in serious legal trouble. I assume a judge would be less susceptible to emotional manipulation, and be intelligent enough to properly weigh the facts.
Of course, then you are at the mercy of one person.
It's called a plea bargain. "Plea guilty and here is your penalty. And if you don't, here is the stack of charges we'll try to get you for and how much worst it will be. Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Over 95% of cases end this way. Based on exoneration, a fairly significant percentage are actually innocent people who decide that they can't fight it.
If you think this doesn't sound like justice, I absolutely agree.
Oh God no. This is even worse. In my limited experience, judges can be very biased. They tend to be very unaccommodating as to what reasonable doubt is (it's whatever they say it is).
And anyone who the prosecutor will stereotype as potentially having too much critical thinking skills or skepticism of the prosecution will get tossed from the jury.
The interpretation part is huge in many disciplines. If you especially look at high profile cases, you can have experts for each side presenting opposing interpretations (not even involving animals).
Then it's up to the jury to decide which is more believable.
There's your spooky story for the day.