The text presents an extensive comparison of three models for administering justice: professional magistrates, popular juries, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The analysis notes that while the current system of professional magistrates offers high technical competency, it is often plagued by pathological slowness and ideological corporatism, particularly when referencing the Italian structure. Conversely, popular juries are praised for their democratic legitimacy and common sense, although they are acknowledged to suffer from lower technical understanding. Furthermore, AI is theorized to offer instant, unbiased application of the law, but it faces currently insurmountable obstacles regarding contextual understanding and democratic accountability. The source details that AI currently risks replicating human biases if trained on existing flawed data and lacks the legitimacy to make critical decisions. The author ultimately concludes that among the realistic options, popular juries represent the least bad alternative, as they effectively challenge the perceived monopoly and irresponsibility of the professional judicial caste.