This is slightly off-topic but I'd like to mention it anyway.

Personally I detest the jury system. I know for a certain fact that I don't understand all of the intricacies of the law and I'm a very well-educated individual. I also know that even after years and years of training, even lawyers have disagreements over the meaning of the law.

So knowing that even the most qualified people to understand the law and legal proceedings get confused and get things wrong, I have a serious problem with taking 12 people who somehow weren't objectionable and expect them to decide an issue that may be a matter of life or death.

That's why I like the Napoleonic system. Get 3 respected judges who have tons of years between them of service and of studying the law. The let them be presented the evidence by both sides, have them discuss it amongst themselves, and make a decision. At least they'll have some clue about what they're dealing with especially on complex cases.

I say, if a panel of judges is good enough for appeals and the Supreme Court than it should be good enough for the average defendant in a criminal trial.