Because judges are often corrupt political hacks whereas juries are panels of peers. A judge must view a law as written and as intended by its writers, whereas a jury of peers can determine if a law is bad law or is simply inappropriate in a certain case.
You define the judge by what he "often" is, or may be. Is judicial activism therefore appropriate if the judge is not a "corrupt political hack"?
A judge must view a law as written and as intended by its writers, whereas a jury of peers can determine if a law is bad law or is simply inappropriate in a certain case.
According to whom? Where are the roles and limitations of a judge or a jury defined?