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?
That almost surely depends on what you are accused of, the evidence against you and, obviously, whether you did it.
If it’s a very technical issue, and an average person is unlikely to understand nuances that make the difference, you probably want a bench trial. Have the expert determine your guilt.
If it’s something where the fallibility of humans can be exploited, or there is obvious government overreach that people would hate, a jury is probably your best bet.
Look at all the recent grand juries in the US refusing to even indict people for things that, on paper, are illegal. Prosecutorial overreach is one reason juries exist as a check on the system. Jury nullification is a check on the system. Yeah you might have done it, and everyone may even agree that you did it, but your peers have decided what you did was justified, or shouldn’t have even been illegal in the first place.