Do you have this &quot;jury of peers&quot; thing as well? Cause that&#x27;s such a scary notion in the US legal system, I&#x27;m happy we do without (in the Netherlands). It&#x27;s such an obvious part of the problem. Yes it&#x27;s nice they&#x27;re peers or something, but they&#x27;re pretty useless considering how easily they get wooed by any expert speaking with a sound of authority and the fact that they&#x27;re a 100 times more familiar with the CSI:Fairytales on TV than they are with the actual justice system.<p>The big difference is that a professional working in this system will actually get a notion of how trustworthy tea-leaf readings actually are when determining objective true facts (or something similarly scientific, like polygraphs--they don&#x27;t seem to get much use outside the US either, weird). Well, unless of course the incentives for the professional are wrong, and again it&#x27;s this &quot;jury of peers&quot; idea that gets in the way, the incentives become about populism and convincing the jury, about the show. Not what&#x27;s really real, but who can produce the biggest superstimulus of hyperreality. Thanks a lot, Baudrillard :-(