The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is admonishing jurors who are refusing to follow his instructions

[u/bendubberley_]

[u/vapordaveremix]

The founding fathers wanted jury trials specifically to stop corruption and government overreach that could be imposed on the populace from justices on the bench.

You want people to go back and forth for days deciding your fate. You want multiple points of view. You want multiple interpretations. You want argumentation until the jury can finally come to a decision. That is a feature not a bug.

[u/hesh582 → u/vapordaveremix]

A bit, but also let's be real here: the founding fathers wanted jury trials because that was the english common law system they were used to and they didn't have a reference point for anything else. Inertia was responsible as much as political theory.

[u/veodin → u/hesh582]

I don't think it was really inertia. Obviously they did inherit the system, and familiarity would of course make it a lot easier to keep, but it was still a hotly debated topic. They were well aware of alternative European civil law systems. Hamilton was fairly cold on the idea of juries being a right which is partly why jury trials for civil cases did not become a right until the 7th amendment. The founders were split on the idea.

Part of the American love for the jury trial was because a judge appointed by the British crown answered to the British Empire. A colonial jury was made up of local people and was therefore seen as independent. The British routed many colonial cases to juryless vice-admiralty courts. These were intensely unpopular and are partly why the US being deprived of the benefits of trial by jury is listed as a grievance in the declaration of independence. So the idea of a trail by jury became seen as important check on judges and government and a foundational element of liberty.