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?
The requirement that it goes through jurors who are your peers is the point. The requirement came from where a judge appointed by the King might not be fully trusted to act in the public’s interests, but the King’s interest. The ability to judge someone guilty devolved to a jury because it was a lot easier to do this than any other form of check on judicial power.