[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Explain to me why it would be better, actually don't bother because in your next highlighted comment you admit that not all doctors would be better equipped... wow that was a quick turn around wasn't it?

This meritocratic system based on academic superiority is flawed, as that is not what a democratic system is based on. I'm not playing any game I agree some people are as thick as lead, they may speak arbitrarily against someone due to their job or the clothes they wear that is true across the spectrum of society.

Yes that's what I'm saying, it's not a bizarre concept.. a jury of peers has been the cornerstone of our criminal justice system for centuries. It wasn't my idea.
People get an education to ensure competency in their specified area of expertise, it doesn't elevate you to consummate guru.

Which would be fine if I'd suggested "a jury of random peers except they have to have a degree" but that's not what I said at all . It would be a jury of professionals with some insight into the area of each specific case; so for example, doctors, psychiatrists and mental health professionals in a rape case... forensic psychologists and criminologists in a murder trial... economists and business analysts in large fraud cases, systems analysts and web experts in hacking cases, etc. etc.