What would be a better alternative?

To juries? Or to the US legal system?

In an ideal world a good judge is likely better for you than a jury if the law is on your side. Unfortunately good judges are hard to pick, and elections of judges don't seem like a solution.

In terms of the legal system itself, there is way too much room for power bias that needs reform.

In theory the law is blind, applying to everyone equally. In practice it is executed by humans who are anything but blind. Bad actors exist at every level, police, DAs, prosecutors, judges and yes, juries.

Humans, and humanity, should be in the loop, but equally its hard to find sufficient quantities of good humans to participate.

Especially in the current political climate, elections for judges seem particularly fraught. A blood-hungry mob favours those who take a "lock up everyone forever" approach.

Equally, seeing the court as a mechanism for politics, from the highest court to the lowest, while it might be good for politics is bad for justice.

There is a lot to dislike about the current system with its various prejudices - but reform is hard because quality people are hard to find. And every bad apple in the system erodes public trust - and once trust in the system has gone it is hard to regain it.

So what would be a better alternative? Not necessarily a better system, but a system populated with better candidates. In many places that means voting for moderate candidates who are focused on justice, not law. On people with character, not who screams the loudest, or has the most extreme viewpoint. On supporting those police honestly "protecting and serving" while at the same time having a police force actively rooting out corruption and prejudice.

Trust is hard earned, and easily lost. Mostly its in the "lost" bucket right now. It will take a lot to get that back.

India had its face-palm moment when the jury acquitted a jealous husband of murder of his wife's lover and abolished jury trials soon after. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Mah...)

Skimming the wikipedia page the Jury's acquittal sounds reasonable as the murder wasn't premeditated.

The guy is trivially guilty of killing somebody (enough evidence + admission) but just because somebody killed somebody doesn't mean they are guilty of any specific law (i.e. driving while intoxicated or in this case premeditated murder). You do still need to charge them for the proper law.

----

IIUC, the US gets around this problem by just trying people for multiple crimes at the same time and the jury can render verdicts on each of them.

Anonymized justice. The facts. The arguments and a decision without any of the parties knowing race or anything else.

"this anonymous person stands on trial for their role in spreading hoaxes in their show about Sandy hook shootings, they have made millions selling supplements online and host their own talk show catered to right wing conspiracies. "

I have literally no idea how you'd accomplish anonymity in many, many cases.

Most cases aren’t that high profile.

Yes, most of the flaws in the US law system allow guilty people to go unpunished.

This was an intentional choice, to err on the side of assuming innocence rather than guilt.

Are you sure that actual outcome of average case? Or rather just a saying? US imprisons most people I the world.