The big difference, though, is that they are not able to refer to the jury deliberations, or influence them (they participate in the deliberations as equal partners). There are a lot of cases where a reasonable jury could have reached a given result, but where there may be reason to doubt if they're doing so for the right reasons.

What we've seen in Norway when the professional judges set aside decisions is exactly that their dissenting opinions often reveal that even when professional judges are participating in the discussions the lay judges still occasionally insist on decisions that are obviously logically invalid.

Also given how blatantly ridiculous some jury decisions can be - the last ever jury decision in a Norwegian court was a combination of two yes/no answers where the jury entered the only combination that was a logical impossibility based on their instructions as a guilty finding on the first charge was a pre-requisite to make the second charge applicable; people were quite relieved that the last jury decision basically helped validate the decision to get rid of them by failing to follow even those basic instructions.

It makes me wonder how many jury decisions have been based on invalid reasoning but where the outcome is just plausible enough to allow the judgement to stand.

Personally I think juries will be looked back on as a dark chapter.