rutger5000 said:
A judge! An untrained jury is simply not capable to make a well thought out decision based on the evidence and testimonies given. Apart from that they are also relatively easy to threaten, bribed or mislead by a skillful lawyer. A judge who has studied for many years, is trained not to be dragged away by his/her emotions, keeps up-to-date on modern investigation theories, has extensive knowledge about humans and is easier to protect and harder to bribe (it should be easy to see wetter the judge suddenly gets a big heap of cash) is a completely different story.
A jury is simply unfair. If the defendant would a ugly socially awkward (or lets face it a black) person then he or she is much more likely to be convicted by a jury then a pretty young white girl. A jury could be considered fair if they were not allowed to see the defendant and the accusers, all the people who testify have their voices altered, and all the lawyers were assigned by the state and of equal skill. Then a jury could be considered as just, but a judge would still be better.
The problem with that, is that judges can be, and are, bought on a fairly regular basis. Judges are just as human as any jury member. Just because they've studied law for years doesn't make them any less susceptible to corruption.
Plus, it's been proven throughout history that giving any individual the power to determine guilty verdicts is a terrible idea.
That said, a jury of judges (ala the Supreme Court) would be a kinda cool idea in lower level courts. I don't think it's terribly practical, just because of the time requirements to actually "make" a judge.
