stock

Under the current system anyone, an educated adult to a babbling moron can be, and are jurors.
What are the PRO-v-CON of having a professional jury. These members would be selected from a pool of individuals who are educated in highly technical fields. There would be people trained in forensic accounting, engineering, management, law, biology, chemistry and so forth. These people would be required to maintain a continuing education program to ensure they are current in their respective fields of expertise. Additionally, to be selected for this career there would be a required background check and/or a security clearance.
The “Jurors” would be on a government pay scale similar to any other government employee.
To answer a few concern I know will be voiced;
1. The jury is paid by the government so they will always side with the government – There are independent government employees who’s job it is to investigate the government, so this should not be an issue.
2. “A jury of my peers” – we do not do this now. How many of Bernie Maddoff’s jurors were billionaire investment brokers? I think none were, I may be wrong.
3. It would be easier to tamper with a jury if you know who they will be – Nothing says this has to be a small pool of people, by necessity it must be large. Jurors could be called from across the country. Additionally, jurors would be subject to continuing background checks that could and should include financial disclosure and review.
4. “More government” – True, but fewer individuals would be required to do jury duty. Not all juries would be drawn from this pool, only if it was a highly technical case. There could also be just one or two experts in the jury to assist or help explain the intricacies.
I realize that there are glaring problems in this idea. I’m not looking to nit-pick it to death, just thoughts on the general concept of a professional jury.
Only well thought out, coherent answers please. No texting shorthand, and spell check is free here.
Thank you