That's what I thought you meant, I maybe didn't explain my answer too well. 

I'm saying that judging how the other jurors might mis-judge the case is kind of like an intellectual high wire act that you can't accurately do in practice.

I think you'd be more likely to stumble over your own feet and go outside of the majority if you start speculating on how others will mis-judge certain info. (It's hard to really guess what anonymous persons' biases are.)

The extreme case where the other jurors ars likely to be racist... they'd have been racist anyways if they were allowed to deliberate. The problem is bad jurors, not the mechanism of trying to vote in the majority.

Maybe there could be some kind of appeal process, where if one person dissents (or if enough people dissent) it gets reviewed by some higher level oracle, and if they decide the one person was right, it's a very high reward for that person. So then there's some incentive to hold your ground even when you know the other jurors are biased.

I think you'd ideally have some way of determining who the best jurors are. You could use the best ones for the biggest cases, and more important as you weed out the worst ones, there's less and less people acting racistly, and less fuel for the beauty contest to happen.

At the end of the day I just cringe so hard at the idea that random people are summoned, against their will with no incentive to do it correctly. Lol. There has to be SOME glaring improvement to that. Intuitively I'm pretty confident that my method works but I'm not sure how well I made the case. Happy to field more questions.