Instead of jury trial in criminal cases, let’s have a panel of five real experts evaluate criminal cases. Let’s say a retired judge, two police officers and, ummm, two victims. That would be fair. I think that is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Similar logic is suggested here to deal with medical malpractice cases.
Actually, if you reverse the paradigm, maybe the better analogy is putting two criminals on the panel. If doctors need to be involved in the process of judging doctors, don’t we need criminals to evaluate criminals. Do non-criminals – people who have never committed so much as a felony.- deserve to judge criminals. But why stop with doctors and criminals? Should the “only we judge us” rule to lawyers, plumbers, farmers and Indian chiefs. I’m guessing only doctors have earned this special privilege, this end run around the law the rest of us have been following for the last 400 years.