I think the jury should represent a random cross section of society regardless of their opinions on the issues. So long as they have no personal connection to the case, they should be good to go.
To specifically address your comment regarding the awarding of damages for pain and suffering: Imagine 90% of the population felt there should be no such damages awarded. Allowing the lawyers to weed out every juror against "pain and suffering" damages would maintain them in our system despite the fact that the public was dead set against it. Is that just?
Look at the death penalty. I'm strongly in favor of it. Many people are not. But you can't get on a death penalty jury unless you're in favor of the death penalty. Is that right?
Another example is punitive damages. I've long thought that if they are imposed at all, the money should go to the government. It's basically a fine to punish them for their bad actions, why should a private party recieve that money?
First, every person going to trial, whether civil or criminal, has the right to a fair and impartial jury that is capable of following the law. If 90% of the people do not believe in pain & suffering damages, then they should speak with their state congressman to change the common law. Pain & suffering are damages which the common law permits upon a preponderance of evidence of the existance of pain, suffering and mental anguish, in any amount that the jury views as just (with obvious due process safeguards intact, of course).
You do not have to believe in the death penalty to sit on a death penalty case. You just have to open to the idea, and not dead set (hehe) against it.
The legal philosophy of punitive or exemplary damages finds root in the common law of England. In Indiana, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the need to maintain punitive damages as a means of punishing or detering offenders for what may be construed as quasi-criminal behavior which the criminal justice system is not equipped to handle. For example, if you are grossly negligent in driving your car (e.g. you knowingly or willfully blew a stop sign), and you injured another, you may seek punitive damages. To obtain them, you must go beyond a preponderance of evidence and provide "clear and convincing" evidence of gross neglect. This burden of proof, while higher than preponderance, is lower than "beyond reasonable doubt." Thus, the civil justice system fills in the gaps where the criminal courts either lack enough evidence for beyond reasonable doubt, or there simply is no criminal charge that can be brought, as in the case of insurance companies plundering their duties of good faith and fair dealing in settling a claim.
In effect, the State cannot bring a claim on behalf of the victim to obtain punitive damages. That right does not exist at common law, and the State would be overburdened if it was required by statute to pursue all quasi-criminal acts to obtain "the fine." While some people view punitive damages as a windfall to a successful plaintiff, in reality the defendant singled out that person for intentional, willfull, or gross neglect, and must by some means be punished or deterred from doing the same or similar conduct to others in the future. In other words, it is a lesson teacher.
So why should the State, who does nothing toward bringing justice in such circumstances, provides no financial or legal assistance to the victim, and requires nongovernmental attorneys and their clients to spend the money to obtain the punitive damage judgment be given the punitive damage award? Why should the State financially benefit when it carries absolutely none of the financial risk or burden in seeking punitive damages? Is not a judgment, which is a property right, taken without just compensation if the plaintiff is required to give away his award of damages in what amounts to taxation without representation?
Yes, punitive damages performs a societal function of punishment and deterrence. However, it is the civil justice system, not the actual plaintiff, who is doing the punishing and deterring. As the actual plaintiff is the ONLY entity capable of accomplishing this deterrence, an award of exemplary damages should rightly go to the person whose "civil" rights were trampled upon.