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?
It’s not Western countries, it’s countries that inherited English common law UK, US, etc). France for example doesn’t have juries iirc. The judges act more as investigators than as referees.
France has a jury system since the Revolution. The idea was to let the People judge itself. But only criminal affairs are judged with a jury nowadays.
Which is where it’s actually needed. Civil juries are nice but there’s less potential for harm if they’re not there.
The U.S. doesn’t have that either it’s up to each state.
i dont believe germany has either.
We have Schöffen that supposedly bridge the gap between ‘the people’ and the court. That’s a slightly different system though and they only participate in like 10-15% of court cases iirc.