The jury system of delivering justice in courts has been identified as one of the oldest legal approaches. However, the system has been the center of debate in the modern era where formal education has taken over the world. A debate to professionalize the juries has been in place, and this stands to affect the legal approach towards delivering of justice.
Professional juries stand to kill the entire essence of the legal approach towards delivering of justice. The jury system relied on extensive participation from some interested parties which contributed to a fair judgment in the end. Professional juries are likely to bring together trained persons holding specific qualifications such as degrees, which is an avenue of penetration of bias into courts.
Opting for professional juries would be indirectly implying that trained judges work together as a bench in the delivery of justice. As a matter of fact, most high courts already have that system and are different from the jury system. The jury system is considerate on the input of the participants, experience, and advice from the judges about the articulations of the law. The situation should be left operate in its current manner without considering professional juries.
Professional juries are likely to fail to tame tyrannical laws set by the government or few individuals within the government. Professionalism would call that the Constitution applies as it is without considering the real meaning of justice. Professionalism would tie juries to the law in the same way it has tied judges to the law, which implies that crime can get away whenever defended by a good lawyer.
All these reasons explain why the status quo of the jury should be maintained so as to preserve the delivery of justice. The approach may be old fashioned but a just approach in delivering justice to many.