What? No, I think jury trials are very, very important, for all their flaws, but I don't think it demonstrates deference to authority to say that it makes sense that your average judge is likely to be more invested in your average trial than your average jury, for the same reason that volunteer militaries tend to have more dedicated soldiers than conscript militaries.
The judge decided to pursue this career, studied law, is fairly well paid for the position, and has nowhere better to be. The jury is likely losing pay, is worried about parking and where and when they're going to eat lunch, and probably just wants the trial to be over (for all that they would of course prefer the outcome to be correct) so they can go home and return to their normal lives.
> I don't think it demonstrates deference to authority to say that it makes sense that your average judge is likely to be more invested in your average trial than your average jury
First off averages aren’t good enough here.
Second I can’t imagine a better example of an appeal to authority.
Trials are an administrative action. Interest in the process is no indication that the outcome will be just.
Your idea falls apart for all of the reasons an appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Additionally you’re fundamentally changing the nature of society by holding the people accountable to power rather than each other.
The judge decided to pursue this career, studied law, is fairly well paid for the position, and has nowhere better to be. The jury is likely losing pay, is worried about parking and where and when they're going to eat lunch, and probably just wants the trial to be over (for all that they would of course prefer the outcome to be correct) so they can go home and return to their normal lives.