Do we need "professional jurors"?

Research showed jurors had "an array of myths and prejudices" that resulted in laws restricting the use of evidence which could be prejudicial, but professional jurors could be taught to put their own prejudices aside.

The Herald

The idea that we dispense with a jury of twelve and use instead a couple of professional jurors is deeply offensive. Cost-saving pressures would, in that model, allow "taught" jurors to act in the interests of a status quo (and ruling interests) in a manner no different from the prejudices and biases of judges, against which the traditional jury may sometimes act. There is a long history of juries taking a view that is different from judges and their directions. Such actions are an occasional constraint on the class-based application  of justice by the judiciary, and are to be welcomed. I can imagine that the Key Government will love this idea.