A couple of years ago, the Kansas City Star ran an article about how the omnipresent TV franchises Law and Order and CSI were having a significant impact on how jurors deliberate in criminal cases. According to the article, more and more jurors are declining to convict unless they can see hard, indisputable forensic evidence. So far, so good, right? After all, if jurors are demanding better evidence, then convictions ought to be more reliable, right?

Image Credit: Patrick Moore

Not quite. It happens that in the world away from television, there isn’t always a team of forensic scientists armed with bleeding-edge equipment scouring every crime scene. Even if there were, the fact is that there often isn’t any forensic evidence. One noteworthy story in the article describes how a jury acquitted a man of murder, even though the victim’s daughter positively identified him. Why? Because there was no forensic evidence. And CSI has led people to believe that they need forensic evidence in order to convict.

This story does more than simply illustrate how TV can influence the thinking of regular people. It also points to one of the fundamental problems with the justice system today: the jury system itself.

America’s justice system demands that the jury serve as the finder of fact. Its job is to sift through the prosecution/plaintiff and defense’s arguments and determine what actually happened. Despite this responsibility, little training is provided to jurors as they are thrown headlong into what are sometimes extraordinarily complicated cases involving factual intricacies. The end result? Wildly inconsistent verdicts that make it much more difficult for parties to determine the outcome of any particular trial.

The status quo jury makes little sense in the present context. If you were on trial for murder — or subject to a lawsuit that could deprive you of your freedom or of all your assets — would you really want your fate to be decided by 12 people literally picked at random from off the street?

So why do we stick with this centuries-old tradition? Why not modernize the justice system so that fact-finding can be fair, consistent, and correct?

One reason the jury system can’t simply be scrapped is the Bill of Rights, which provides the right to a jury trial in both criminal and civil cases. Nowhere in the Constitution, though, is it demanded that such juries be comprised of 12 random people who may have few critical thinking skills, no knowledge of the scientific method, and a skewed understanding of today’s evidence gathering techniques. The Constitution merely demands that juries be impartial. So there is one possible reform of the jury system that should be able to pass constitutional muster.

Professionalize juries.

Rather than have the facts of a case determined by untrained citizens, have those facts be determined by people who have received specialized training in reasoning skills and the scientific method, and have them paid for it with a decent salary. These people might be trained and licensed through a specialized course, or perhaps have a relevant degree, such as a B.S. in the sciences.

There could be a number of benefits to using professional juries. For one, consistent training will lead to consistent results in trials. More consistent outcomes mean that individuals and businesses are better able to plan the consequences of any potential litigation. More predictable outcomes also lead to fewer trials and more settlements, because trials would be less of a crap shoot than they are today.

More important than consistent results are results that are more likely to be correct. A jury that is trained in properly evaluating evidence is more likely to arrive at an accurate conclusion with respect to the trial’s outcome. Additionally, professional jurors would be more familiar with the trial setting, and would accordingly be less likely to be confused or intimidated by the proceedings. That familiarity would ensure that the jury is focused on testimony and evidence, and not distracted by the unfamiliar surroundings.

Indeed, such comfort with the proceedings might work towards strengthening another important role of juries: the check against arbitrary government action. A professional jury, confident of its role as fact-finder, would be more likely to distinguish when an action against an individual is legitimate, and when such an action is meant to intimidate or harass.

After all, a professionally trained jury is unlikely to judge a case based on standards presented to them by CSI or Law and Order. Instead, they’ll judge a case based on logic, the scientific method, and the actual evidence presented at trial. Who knows? If the professional juror idea catches on, they might just get a show of their own.

This article was originally published at TCS Daily in February, 2006