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?
Then the law should be changed.
With a jury system you can end up in the situation where they will apply the law to the fullest if the jury doesn’t like you, but it gets ignored if they do like you. Examples where this would apply could be racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
A properly functioning justice system should be blind and apply the law equally to everyone, and a jury system makes that less likely. A judge can also have biases, but they are supposedly at the very least a professional and an expert on the law, and are meant to act accordingly.
“Are meant to” and “supposedly” but unless there’s a mechanism to hold them accountable those are just wishful thinking. And at a certain point you run into “who watches the watchman?” I don’t have confidence in a jury to put aside bigotry but I don’t have confidence in a judge to either.
Yeah that’s the opposite side of the jury nullification coin. There’s better examples than weed. In a lot of cases cops plant evidence of crimes and there isn’t much that the law would have to say in court, but the jury might suss it out.