On the surface, the rationale for the UK government’s proposals to limit the use of jury trials in England and Wales is pragmatic. Over 78,000 crown court cases remain unresolved, creating years-long delays for victims and defendants alike. But among those of us who research jury behaviour and decision-making, these proposals raise a deeper debate. Some argue that juries are too biased, too unreliable to deliver justice. Their hope is that if we could replace them with trained legal professionals, we might finally reduce the role that bias plays in the courtroom. But is this even possible? All observation is “theory-laden”. Scientists, politicians, judges and jurors are not immune to their biases and worldviews influencing their decision-making. Both judges and juries bring biases to the courtroom. The critical difference is that juries are more diverse than a single judge. Today, 89% of judges are white, 61% are men, and around a third attended private school. Fewer than 10% come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This class and educational homogeneity matters profoundly. Judges who attended private school …