Two additional points:
1. Using 12 random people off the street, in a system that proudly insists on including lowlives, drunks and the homeless in the jury pool, who are experts in nothing, can be uneducated in basic life and are of no particular moral standing, to decide the fate of an accused’s life, is the height of rishus.
2. There’s a necessary tension regarding either giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquitting him if his guilt is uncertain, even if his guilt is likely yet unproven — versus not giving him the benefit of the doubt if guilt is likely but unproven, and thereby convicting him in such circumstances, essentially using a system of guilty unless proven innocent. In a moral system we use the rule of innocent unless proven guilty; America claims to follow this principle but actually that claim is a lie as they frequently convict innocent men, and certainly often convict accuseds whose guilt was clearly not proven.
3. Correction to typo in previous post above: It should read “AFTER a month long trial” (not ‘street’).