That's all very well, but I think some people are skeptical about the jury process because...
Two little words: civic duty.
My favorite badass federal judge was a retired Marine who served a couple of tours in Viet Nam. He was not impressed by any version of "I have more important things to do than sit on a jury." He was, however, very good about granting temporary leave to folks requesting specific periods of time off for things like marrying, burying, and taking that long-paid-for vacation to Ulan Bator.
a jury of your peers." Does that mean that if (say) a member of the English nobility is on trial, he can insist that the jury be composed entirely of noblemen?
Two more little words that might help you grok the origin and meaning of jury by peers: Magna Carta.
There's also the fact that the jury can be swayed by several factors...* Is there a way to prevent or limit that?
That is what voir dire is for and why it can take so long to seat a jury. You'd probably be surprised by the amount of time spent researching potential jurors before the pool even gets called into the courtroom.
I'm talking about US law, of course. I haven't a clue what y'all get up to down under, though I assume the system is based on English common law.