Where I disagree with how you are characterizing is the entire notion of "judgment". I'm not even sure that is what juries do...
Since I'm a trial lawyer, lets take any civil case and see what a jury does. As I like to tell jurors, they are the "judges of the facts", but that does not mean they are holding anyone in judgement. I'll clarify...
In New York City, the law requires that business owners maintain their properties in reasonably safe condition. So, lets say Demetrios is walking along, right by Anastasios Inc.'s property where the sidewalk is broken up and there is no lighting in the area. Demetrios is walking by one day at dusk and takes a flop on a the sidewalk in disrepair and breaks his arm.
So, we know what the law says about keeping things in "reasonably safe condition", so what does the jury have to decide?
1. Did Anastasios Inc, keep its property in reasonably safe condition? If a jury says yes, case is over. No personal judgment on anyone.
2. If they decide no, then they answer: Was the condition of defendant's property the proximate cause of plaintiff's fall and injury? If no, case over. No personal judgment.
3. If yes, then they will be asked to determine how much comparative fault the plaintiff had and what if any monetary compensation he/she is entitled to.
Any which way you slice it, there is no personal judgment. They have not adjudicated the anyone is a bad person or doomed. All they have decided is that a certain set of facts fits into an element of the law (or not).