Which modern state? Macedonia? Russia? The US? Finland? I'd trust exactly one of those four.

I meant america, or another "western" country like canada or the uk.

I'd so much rather my case be heard by a group of qualified judges (that's right, group. Your case is heard by three judges, to make sure no one judge gets to manipulate a case on a whim) who got their job because they were appointed based on their career track, rather than because they were elected by an electorate who hasn't the slightest idea how insane that is. (lawyers need to be bar-qualified, but judges amazingly need zero qualification. Wtf, US?)

And that's before we actually look at the reliability of a jury trial: the letter of the law might claim it's a jury of peers, but that's never the case from the outset, and then lawyers get to demand that the only people who might actually do any reasonable thinking get replaced if they know a reasonable thinking person would conclude their client's guilty.

The system is so messed up, you could write multiple books about it. Which people have.

I was under the impression that peer meant in olden times a nobleman couldnt judge a commoner. Doesn't seem as relavant today.

Have you seen courts in other countries? SCOTUS does a pretty good job. Even justices that I don’t like write logically consistent and sound arguments, and we have very recent evidence to show that they hold their ideals above favoritism.

Don’t mistake SCOTUS justices’ philosophical differences as partiality.