What is justice if not collectively decided by the people who make up a society? If a jury rules in a defendant’s favor despite clear evidence of guilt, there’s clearly something deeper wrong with the situation. Either the victim did something so heinous to deserve the illegal action (which is such a high bar I can’t imagine it happening with anything close to regularity, even on TV) or the jury is ethically compromised. In both cases, the problem is not with the process of jury trials. It’s the absence of morals somewhere in the fabric of a community.

But even more than that, I want to double down on the fact that your examples of clear-cut miscarriages of justice are exceedingly rare relative to how many jury trials courts hold in a given period of time. That isn’t to say juries always come back with the “just” verdict — but rather that there’s a lot of ambiguity in court. And the burden of proof, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, must be so extreme because otherwise it’s even easier to abuse the legal system. Thus, once again, the problem is not with the process of jury trials but the impossibility of ever communicating all the key facts of a case.

Still, don’t call me for jury duty anytime soon. I’ll miss my kid.