All nations within the Anglosphere (US, UK, CA, AU & NZ) have JD imposed towards citizens. I know that the US & Canada both inherited that from Britain, which explains why they have it. However, should it be entirely only the judge making the conviction (some countries operate on a lay-judge system meaning juries aren’t used, such as Finland or Japan for example) rather than leaving that decision up to jurors?
Doesn’t a judge have to agree on the decision of the jury anyway? Like if there is no doubt of a crime and the jury comes back with a not guilty the judge can tell the jury to go back and discussed it again or dismiss the jury and start again.
In the US, no. Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I’m wrong. In criminal cases, if the jury can’t come to a unanimous decision, then the judge can send them back to deliberate further or declare a hung jury and the prosecution can decide if they want to try again. If the jury comes back with a unanimous verdict then it stands. If the defendant doesn’t agree with the verdict, they can choose to appeal to a higher court, which can then decide to hear the case or let the verdict stand. Cases where the jury returns a not-guilty verdict even though the evidence presented clearly shows that the law was broken are called jury nullification. It’s a last line of defense against unjust laws.