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?
People who have no education regarding the law should not be deciding anything regarding the law.
They generally don’t. Juries do not interpret the law, they just look at the evidence for both sides and decide which is right. The judge tells them what the law is. In fact, attorneys for both sides really don’t want lawyers or legal professionals on juries.
To be fair, they are not making the law, nor are they making the punishment. They are only determining guilt. If that requires education, then it’s the courts job to do so during the trial so the jury can make an informed choice. And in the most extreme cases, all the jurors must come to a consensus - meaning that as a whole, the outcome is beyond reasonable doubt regardless of who is in the jury.
To do any less means to give certain individuals more power. And we have special cases for that too, as not everything requires a jury. So unless you’re willing to give up all power, this should be a sufficient balance of power.
Jury duty still sucks though.
someone without knowledge of history can better point out idiotic decisions that were made for historical reasons, and will not interpret things in the same outdated ways