Secrecy of the jury and grand jury

I don't see how justice can be served better with the secrecy of the jury and grand jury deliberation and do not understand why would people in a democratic system would choose that.  I cant see any argument anywhere close to justify that secrecy in general and even more so with control by corruption forces like the way it is here.

I am not a fan of even the secrecy of the deliberation of supreme courts but at least they write opinions. If required ,even the identity of the juries doesn't have to be revealed to show the details of the deliberation and questioning by the juries. The entire deliberation can be video recorded then revealed without showing the image of any person in the jury or even his or her real voice. 

I don't see why it is assumed that recognition of the jury that their deliberation will be revealed would not only more probably affect their decision more negatively than positively but also to the level of offsetting the benefit of letting the outside world know how the decision was reached. How many people do you know would think: Oh, there is a camera on me, lets choose the incorrect path?

In democratic systems ruling is in the hands of people and that secrecy wastes that big power and is unnecessary major hindrance to the path of justice.

At least in the past, there was the reason of the cost and proof associated with keeping a person maintaining a record. All that has gone a long time ago and all what is needed now is to turn on a video camera and let it run.

There should be a real compelling reason ,which I think very seldomly is the case, for why the deliberation and similar actions by the juries should not be revealed when that happens and not assumed it to be the correct path by default.