Judges are better trained to know when their biases are, in fact, biases, and to set them aside as best as they can. Not all do that to the best of their ability, and there's residual bias even with those that do. But, statistically speaking, if you're facing charges in US, and you're innocent, it's better to go with a judge than with a jury. And conversely, if you actually did it, you have better chances convincing the jury that you didn't, or that you deserve a more lenient sentence.
Here's an article I found on the topic and it suggests what I thought -- that judges are more likely to find people guilty than juries. Whether you think that means that judges are too close to prosecutors and police or juries are letting guilty people walk is a matter of interpretation, I guess. But to the concerns of the parent poster, juries have a higher, not lower, standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt."
