What does a "Jury of Peers" mean?

The American jury is suppose to function as one of the last cornerstones of our democratic systems with its promise that all citizens, regardless of background, race, ethnicity or gender, have the opportunity to participate in the fair administration of justice for all by serving as a juror. The right of serving on a jury is protected by the Equal Protection Clause which prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of race or gender, or on the assumption that an individual will be biased in a particular case for no reason other than the fact that the person happens to be a part of either group.

 

There are two portraits of an ideal juror: 1) a juror who brings no personal knowledge or opinions to the case, therefore they can judge it with impartiality; or 2) a juror with localized knowledge, therefore they can apply the law as a neighbor in ways that resonates with the community’s moral values. [1] The tensions between these portraits represent the dilemma of modern jury selection as “the jury immediately inspires but confuses us because it wants matters both ways: to insulate justice from popular prejudice and yet to leave justice in the hands of the populace.”[2]

Should the jury of our peers be defined by those closest to us in our communities or those who are insulted from our communities but have specific knowledge about the topic being adjudicated? As we balance these two competing interest, it's a question that is complicated by the fact that a diversity of opinions on a jury is important for preserving its democratic value.

[1] Jeffery Abramson, We the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy 18 (1994)/

[2] Id.