My apologies, but I find your comment somewhat confusing.<p>&gt; In Japan lay judges (citizens) were re-introduced into trials in order to offer defendants a possibly more sympathetic audience. In Japan, due to quite a few idiosyncrasies[1], prosecutors achieve upwards of 95% conviction rates.<p>&gt; often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring &quot;accidents&quot; rather than pursuing murder, etc...<p>How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Aren&#x27;t they attacking the wrong part of the problem ?<p>&gt; An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases.<p>I find it hard to believe that professionals would be more incapable of sympathy.