I've been on jury duty this week. Haven't made it on to a jury but seeing the people in the jury assembly room got me to thinking. If I were accused of a crime would I trust twelve of these "peers" to be able to decide on my guilt or innocence?
This brought me to a moment of startling clarity. If you were guilty of the crime you were accused of, you would want a jury trial so that your lawyer could use emotions and appeals to human nature to sow the seeds of doubt in the jury's mind. On the other hand, if you were not-guilty, you'd want a panel of judges to assess the evidence and make up their minds from a (hopefully) more logical and rational point of view, see you were not-guilty and send you on your way.
Therefore all we need to do is ask the accused if they want a jury trial or to be assessed in front of a panel of learned judges. If they pick a jury trial, they are guilty and you can bang them up in gaol without the cost of a trial. Simple, innit? This method has hostorical precedence as any Google search for "Spanish Inquisition" or "Salem Witch Trials" will show.