The reason the jury members are known to the public is the same reason we have open trials. It's intended to be a guard against corruption of the courts. If the public knows the twelve are regular members of a community, then they also have a better shot at knowing whether or not they are aligned with, or bought by, the state or the defense. If secret juries are what you think you want, consider how that would affect you if you were on trial and your only crime was maybe being too critical of TPTB, or a powerful criminal in your community. Remember TPTB or the criminal can be those who have the power & money to not only buy LE and judges, they can also buy a jury. Is that who you want deciding your fate? An open jury is part of your insurance as a citizen. Yes it can be tough to be on one, but it's important that they are known to be 'us'.
One problem in our current system is that too few 'regular joes' are serving these days because it's so easy to get out of it. What results can sometimes be anything but a jury of your peers. But whoever they are, I'll honor them for serving because not being representative is not their fault. But after they accept the responsibility, what they do with it should be open to public opinion. We, as citizens, expect them to do the best job they can do - to follow the law and to judge based on the evidence presented because they represent the collective 'us'. And it's our right, maybe even our duty, to voice our opinions when they don't do that. The public's judgement of how well - or how poorly - they did their job is also part of ensuring fair trials. The juror is supposed to be a part of the community and knows he will return to that community once his service is done.
Back in the day, before cities became so populated, the idea was that the farmer that served stood shoulder to shoulder with his neighbor during and after the trial. He represented the members of the community that had been harmed by the crime being tried, so he was expected to represent them well, or to face them if he didn't. Today we don't personally know that farmer, and our 'shoulder to shoulder' might be electronic, but the principal of expecting him to represent us well still stands. Open trials and open juries are not easy on those who serve, but it's not supposed to be. It's what a citizen owes the system that affords him his right to a fair trial. Yes, that jurist also has the right to be safe in his community after his service, and we have laws to protect him if threatened or unduly harassed. He deserves that, we all do. But each of us faces our neighbors based on our actions in society, and protecting a juror from public censure would take away part of the incentive to represent his community well when serving. IMO.
