Would you mind quoting that definition?

You might not be aware, but a lot of democratic and definitely not authoritarian countries don't make use of juries at all or only in a limited way.

When I think of low corruption I certainly think of India.

I don't think the boring reality of most jury trials would make for an interesting screenplay.

It’s a silly bit of theater and American exceptionalism.

Infamously, “grand juries” are supposed to be a check against bringing frivolous charges, but they’ve never done this: there’s a famous quote about a prosecutor being able to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. They’re also used to kill trials which are politically inconvenient but which the government doesn’t want to take the blame for burying, usually for killer cops: just tell the grand jury not to indict and then say “welp, nothing we could do.”

All the romantic stories about jury nullification being a check against government overreach are also crap. Historically the most common use in practice, by far, was when juries would exonerate people who’d been caught dead-to-rights lynching black men.

A notable exception is the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men with Henry Fonda. One of my favorites.

When I see juries in American courts, for example when I've served on one, it seemed like a group of people who take their job quite seriously. You are correct in that what a jury gets is a very curated set of information. The intention being to keep the jury focused on the details of a very specific situation with evidence that is processed in such a way as to be as "reliable" as possible.

It is by no means an accurate or incorruptible system. When we design and prove out a better, more robust alternative, I'll be eager to learn about it.