You can't possibly expect a poster like Vercetti to have the requisite comprehension or maturity to appreciate the pragmatic and philosophical underpinnings of a peer-jury based judicial system.
Right. Forgive me for not comprehending the logic behind choosing twelve random people off the street with no legal background (the dumber the better) and forcing them to appear as the judges of a criminal case. These people know that the longer they deliberate, the more their lives are interrupted. It's always the most outgoing and pushy person in any jury that convinces everyone of how to vote because most just want to get it over with and not bother arguing.
It's far more financially prudent, timely and pragmatic than having professional, highly educated and experienced judges decide each case and not let a person's guilt or innocence be decided by how good of a lawyer they have or how good of a prosecutor was assigned to the case.
You're the one who lacks any kind of realistic perception of the world. The jury system and forcing people to serve is a joke.