> A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a jury. This would make sense in a country where trust in authorities is high

> A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a jury. This would make sense in a country where trust in authorities is high, and people generally believe that the judges and the justice system is impartial and fair, without too much personal and hidden agendas. But in a country where the trust in the system is lower, a jury of peers provides a safety mechanism so that the justice system cannot diverge too far from the point of view of the "common man".