In our legal system provisions are made for trials by jury and trials by judge. The circumstances make the choices available and typically the defendant can make the call under the advisement of counsel.
Today is Jury Rights Day observed each September 5 in commemoration of the famous case of William Penn in 1670 which set that precedence for the right that jurors have still today which is to conscientiously acquit someone by jury nullification.
Jury nullification occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having broken the law in the eyes of the court.
Jury nullification cannot be held against a juror. If they disagree with the law or aspects of what they have heard to the point that no consequences are placed upon the defendant that is simply the breaks.
There can be no recourse by the legal system in these instances.
When a judge tries a case only the judge decides the verdict. Jury nullification is therefore impossible.
Jury trials tend to be more compassionate because they are comprised of ordinary people untrained in the exclusion of emotional arguments.
Jurors are typically less concerned with the technical aspects of the trial and evidence making them "easier" than a judge who is trained in these areas extensively.
Personally, not having yet been a defendant I don't know whether I would prefer a jury or judge try my case.
Intellectually I think jury trials are more inclined toward fairness because it is a group hearing the case. Reality causes me to recognize this may not be the case, however.
I suppose it would all come down to the nature of the proceedings as to what I would choose.
Likely I'd prefer to discard the proceedings and let Judge Judy decide the outcome.