Few advocates of the jury system would argue that the average juror is as competent a tribunal as the averagejudge. Whatever competence the jury has is a function of two of its attributes: its number and its interaction. The fact that a jury must be composed of at least six people,' with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, provides some protection against decisions based on an idiosyncratic view of the facts. Not only must the jury include at least six people, but they must be chosen in a manner that conforms to the ideal of the jury as representative of community opinion.2 The jury's competence, unlike that of the judge, rests partly on its ability to reflect the perspectives, experiences, and values of the ordinary people in the community-not just the most common or typical community perspective, but the whole range of viewpoints. Representativeness is important not only for ensuring "the essential nature of the jury as a tribunal embodying a broad democratic ideal," 3 but because it affects the jury's competence directly. Failure to assure that any given group has a fair chance of participation "deprives the jury of a perspective on human events that may have unsuspected importance in any case that may be presented." 4
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. "Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?" Law & Contemp. Probs. 52 (1989): 205-24.