Hi,

In no particular order:
- People asking for things that are already clear, is likely how someone with Asperger would view the allists in the jury.
- AFAIK, allists and autists all differ in the same way: Allists set up an image of what they believe to be the state of their world. Autists access their recollection when they need to determine the state of the world. Diagnoses aren't geared towards that difference, though, but instead register differences that derive from this: As any person copes with the world in his own way, this means the diagnosis can only indicate a likelihood.
- There are jury systems where a number of alternates are chosen as well, in case the jury becomes incomplete for some reason.
- If theory of mind is necessary to determine the guilt of a suspect, then the law apparently forces the amateur jury into the field of the professional judge, the latter supposedly being the one to determine the severity. I would say that the problem of who can be on a jury is relatively small when compared to the apparent problem that the whole system doesn't work anymore.
- I would say, jury systems are mostly a historical relic that has no place in today's world, but I haven't done the research to support that with little doubt.

None of the possible problems with jury duty mentioned in this thread so far are autist- or allist-specific. If the system lets in an autist who is fit/unfit for jury duty, that means it also lets in allists that are fit/unfit for jury duty. (There are far more allists than autists.)

Bye,
                                                                Mysha