Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

> Juries, widely trusted to impartially deliver justice, are the most familiar instance.

Trusted by those that have not looked into whether this is actually the case. The first prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was famously against trial by jury, because of how easily lawyers can abuse biases in multiracial societies, based on his first-hand experience [1].

A UK study found his experience is the norm, not the exception - Black and minority ethnic (BME) jurors vote guilty 73% of the time against White defendants, but only 24% of the time against BME defendants [2]. (White jurors vote 39% and 32% for convicting White and BME defendants, respectively. You read that correctly - Whites are also biased against other Whites, but to a much lesser degree)

Edit: To answer what is the alternative to juries: Not all countries use juries, in some the decision is up to the judge, and in some, like France, they use a mixed system of judges and jurors on a panel [3]. The French system would be my personal preference, with the classic jury system coming in second, despite my jury-critical post. Like democracy, it's perhaps the least bad system that we have, but we shouldn't be under any illusions about how impartial and perceptive a group of 12 people selected at random is.

[1] https://postcolonialweb.org/singapore/government/leekuanyew/...

[2] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst... - page 165 (182 by pdf reader numbering), figure 6.4

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

That statistic could also be the result of excessive prosecution against black/minorities and not necessarily just jury bias. (Which would also explain the white bias against whites)

If you're curious about this topic, I'd recommend you look up interviews with the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial. Many were black and by their own admission made their decision about OJ's guilt-based entirely on a feeling of racial justice. They considered it “payback.”

https://youtu.be/BUJCLdmNzAA?feature=shared

And the LAPD seems to have decided OJ was guilty based largely on a feeling of racial prejudice. The fact that he actually did it was coincidental. I've often seen that trial described as the LAPD framing a guilty man. The prosecution did a terrible job and I'm not at all convinced the acquittal wasn't the correct verdict, even if it's pretty clearly contrary to the facts of what happened.

It seems safe to assume that the LAPD also did/does this to less famous people of color, in which case a higher rate of voting to acquit would not indicate bias by the jury.