Juries are drawn from local populations, whose demographics can differ radically from the national average. We can't know whether or not people were under-represented or over-represented without knowing where this took place.
You can't choose to sit on a jury in the US. People are randomly selected (I think from voting registrations). Small towns have less crime and less need for jurors. Even so, because the choice is not up to you, the "professional juror" would just be a very unlucky person.
It's not unheard of for small towns to pool jurors from another county on certain highly publicized cases do to the concern of a fair trial.
Otherwise the constitution guarantees a jury of your peers not a jury of people with the same/similar/local values. Certainly in context "peers" could come under scrutiny in light of the dictionary definition.
In theory juries only examine facts but in practice they are equal with judges in they decide both matter of law and fact and can nullify or convict without regard or with regard to either.
The system we use in rural countryside where police basically don't exist, ultimately, is a direct jury of your peer neighbors. It's better if you don't like those decisions centralized to some far away assholes with even less aligned motives.
reply