>>40383997Because it's a necessary counterweight in the jurisprudence. Take for example, the Judge Magni stream. A court with no jury means the judge ultimately can decide your fate. And this poses a problem: what if the judge was bribed or compromised? Who would save your ass? However, in a jury system, this somewhat balances that since you have another impartial, uncompromised party that can also provide a decision. If the jury however, was compromised, the judge can overrule that.
TLDR: Jury exists to give you an impartial, fair trial. At least in theory.
