Never have I seen it so sharply defined that the jury system is so lacking. I would prefer a well prepared case in-front of a panel of judges any day.
As I said, it's about an overall system not a series of individual judgements all lumped together.
A juror is master of their own conscience - or can be. A judge isn't. They just do "what the law says". Good law. Bad law. They don't give two shits. If the law says that you jail someone for being poor - that's what they do.
We know this because (a) it's what they did, and (b) people don't change.
So stuff "learned judges" where the sun don't shine, and allow a sliver of conscience into justice. And you can only do that with a juror.
The late Lord Devlin, arguably the greatest judge of the century, was a powerful defender of trial by jury.
He said: "Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives."