On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level.
This has been an issue since the internet was invented. Its always been the duty of the lawyers on both sides to present the information in cases like this in a manner that is understandable to the jurors.
I distinctly remember during the OJ case, there were many issues that the media said most likely were presented in such a detailed manner, many in the jurors seemed to be checked out. At the time, the prosecution spent days just on the DNA evidence. In contrast, the defense spent days just on how the LAPD collected evidence at the crime scene with the same effect, that many on the jury seemed to check out the deeper the defense dug into it.
So it not just technical cases, any kind of court case that requires a detailed understanding of anything complex comes down to how the lawyers present it to the jury.
Not to be ageist, but I find this highly counterintuitive.
Let's just say with a full jury you're almost guaranteed to get someone on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of age.
The judge decided to pursue this career, studied law, is fairly well paid for the position, and has nowhere better to be. The jury is likely losing pay, is worried about parking and where and when they're going to eat lunch, and probably just wants the trial to be over (for all that they would of course prefer the outcome to be correct) so they can go home and return to their normal lives.
First off averages aren’t good enough here.
Second I can’t imagine a better example of an appeal to authority.
Trials are an administrative action. Interest in the process is no indication that the outcome will be just.
Your idea falls apart for all of the reasons an appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Additionally you’re fundamentally changing the nature of society by holding the people accountable to power rather than each other.
With this in mind, I personally believe groups will always come to better conclusions than individuals.
Being tried by 12 instead of 1 means more diversity of thought and opinion.
There is a wisdom of the crowd, and that wisdom comes in believing that we are all equal under the law. This wisdom is more self evident in democratic systems, like juries.