I'm thinking that this isn't possible. Of course, there is a selection process for a Jury ...
Their history/record is viewed, which doesn't really indicate how a person actually thinks .. only that they haven't been in trouble with law.
A questionnaire is filled out, which doesn't really mean anything because when we fill out forms ... we all remain sensible because no feelings are involved.
As we look through dxp, we can see certain traits of our peers that remain pretty consistent. We have ...
1) Those who will only see the positive side of the person who is having troubles and will refuse to accept that they've done anything wrong within the situation. This is called compassion for the person in plight. In this compassionate out-reach, the other person to whom isn't here is ALWAYS the one in wrong, regardless .. even when the poster says this person is actually a good person.
2) Those who will only see the negative side of the person who is having troubles and will refuse to accept that this person is void of all innocence. In this negative stance .. the person having the problems becomes the guilty, eventhough there may have been valid information to conclude they were innocent.
3) Even the people who remain completely indifferent when they can actually "see" a truth within the scenrio, is really taking a position of not liking to be confrontational.
My whole point is ... with just us in here, when we come across situations, we immediately already have a mind-set in which to formulate our opinion, or judgement. Once an emotion has been evoked, we people in dxp, consistently follow this same path in which we view circumstances .. completely and totally biased, based off of our own emotional interpretation of how each situation and person should be regarded and treated.
So, how can we in real life actually have a Jury who is impartial, if we have so programmed ourselves to be emotionally biased, according to how we believe is appropriate treatment to another person in trouble?