[mnrode]

AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution, are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors in. Both sides keep each other in check.

A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecution and/or the defense may not want someone in the jury that is openly racist.

[stickfigure]

You're right, but in fact the judge can put their finger on one side of the scales. I was in voir dire for an obvious drug prosecution and before selection began, the judge eliminated anyone who thought the laws should be changed. That was in the late 90s in a (US) federal court.

[lugged]

We don't live in a binary world.

All this does is push precedent in one of two directions.