It's interesting how well the jury system is set up- innocent until proven guiltily, beyond a reasonable doubt, jury of your peers, appeals, etc. even this reducing bias in jury selection.
I'm sure there's disgruntled people that will tell me it's all garbage, but it's certainly a lot better than I could have done.
Suppose you're accused of, say, marijuana possession. Far more than 1 in 12 people think marijuana should be legal, so an actually RANDOM jury would almost never convict - that jury pool would correctly reflect the sentiment in the populace at large that this law is stupid and shouldn't be enforced.
But a jury in which everybody who seems "biased" on the issue has been removed by the judge or the prosecutor, leaving only people who "had no opinion" or are willing to accept the law exactly as the judge interprets it...is hugely MORE biased towards conviction than a random group of 12 people would be.
I'm sure there's disgruntled people that will tell me it's all garbage, but it's certainly a lot better than I could have done.