What circumstances may trial without jury be permitted under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
In some instances when there is suspicion that there is tampering of evidence in a trial, juries might not be of any help at that time. At times, the evidence may pose a real danger, regardless of the protection of the police; a case without a jury is encouraged so as to enhance justice. Certain provisions in the constitution, allows for trying of convicts charged with domestic aggressions
“The assumption is that the presence of twelve lay persons, arbitrarily introduced into the trial process to be trendsetters of the facts of the case, strengthens the legitimacy of the legal system” (Slapper & Kelly, 2010). Examine the case for and against the trial by jury in the context of this statement.
It has always been viewed that having 12 persons chosen randomly in a trial case strengthens the credibility of the trial in the court of law. The juries have the responsibility of listening to the verbal evidence presented in court and look into related evidence given by the defense team and the prosecution party. Their responsibility is also to asses the integrity of a witness and taking into account the weight of the piece of evidence presented in relation to the case.
At the end, they are supposed to give out their own judgment based on whether a person is innocent or guilty. This has helped a great deal in introducing an independent humanizing component in the case. The result is the reduction of the special authority given to the experts who would want to determine and control the result of the court cases. Although it is a good step, juries have been known to be influenced thus affecting the outcome of the case. Some take bribes or act in favor of a party. Lastly, individual opinion of a jury is ignored as what matters is the belief of the majority of the people in the jury.