[cyphar]

Jury randomisation has positives and negatives. Yes, it means that juries are unlikely to have the necessary context for a case. It's the job of the attorneys and expert witnesses to provide that context. This is not a good thing, and can cause miscarriages of justice. This is why appeals are a thing. On the other hand, you get a more statistically consistent justice system with jury randomisation. Not to mention that you immediately lose any bias during the jury selection (on which criteria should I pick a "peer"? random selection is much less prone to bias). The job of the justice system is to aim for consistency as well as justice (it would be unjust if the courts were not consistent -- yeah, yeah I know).