Awesome. 

I've for a long time hated the idea of jury deliberation. As you say, a strong willed juror can influence others. If they can all be influenced by each other, you dampen the point of having multiple decision outputs. It's closer to just having one person. Or possibly worse since someone who is good at talking people into things might be bad at judging accurately.

I think an easy improvement that's available to us already is that each juror/judge decides on their own, with no communication at all with the others, and then they're rewarded for deciding in the majority. (Since you have no idea what the others will do, judging what seems to be true is your only strategy.)

Moving forward, you're probably right that AI can do a better job. 

You could have prediction markets on Augur that trade shares on the outcome, and any time the final prediction on Augur is different than what the AI decides, you could consider that cause for a retrial, perhaps with a different AI system. 

Or maybe there should be an oracle of humans (using blockchain stuff obv) who decide on the case first, and then AI systems go after that, since they aren't biased by what the humans already decided.

Another aspect of this that I'm looking forward to (when we move beyond using punishment to resolve crimes) is decentralization of *how we deal with* the criminals. If there's ambiguity over whether they did something, all that's really important is that everybody has access to all the info. You'd know that the oracle decided this, Augur predicted that, the AI said this. (You can watch the trial if you want.) And you can take it all for whatever it's worth to you. And others will do the same, and some type of consensus will emerge. We get there without a black and white decision issued by a central party.