This advance for trial, and an opportunity to

This
essay will explain how Jury trials and Sentencing of the Criminal Justice
System process adhere to due process values.

Due
process is the conduct of legal procedures which are established to ensure that
there is a fair trial for every defendant. Since infallibility cannot be
ensured on the courts judgements, the legal system intends to warrant another
achievable option that is second best. The implementation of due process
ensures that no defendant is sentenced without an adequate and systematic procedure
which is to be used consistently in all cases. Under due process, all
defendants receive a notification in advance for trial, and an opportunity to
be present, be heard, and defend themselves. This also incorporates legal
counsel, cross examination and confront witnesses, decline self-implicating
testimony as well as have a crime proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Opposing
to the due process model, there is the crime control model which, Packer 1968,
established to attempt to deal with weak criminal cases as quickly as possible.
This model is described as prioritising convictions of individuals who may have
committed an offence or not. It is focused on sentencing even if it means that there
is a chance that an innocent person may be sentenced to achieve the goal.

 

Jury
trials are seen as to adhere to due process as it allows public participation
in the case, jurors act as a barrier between law enforcement and laws as well
as not being persuaded by professional bias.

Juries
are randomly selected through a register and are summoned to attend court on specific
dates. In 2001, circumstances in which people could avoid jury duties were restricted,
moreover The Criminal Justice Act 2003, terminated the idea of any excuses of
avoiding jury duties with the exception of serving military personnel.

In trials
95% of criminal cases are heard in Magistrates Courts, however, only around 5%
of the cases may need a jury. Once cases are at verdict stage, juries have to
come to a conclusion as to whether they believe the defendant is guilty or
innocent by vote.

Juries
are excused from trials in Crown Court by The Criminal Justice Act 2003, as
they are deemed to be complex and burdensome. (NEWBURN, 2017)

 

The
Criminal Defence service was set to give free legal advice as well as
representation, which is accessible in four areas in England and Wales. Their
role is to ensure that defendant’s rights are protected and that procedures are
followed according to law.

Due
process is then an important component of the criminal justice system by posing
a challenge to the prosecution by defence solicitors.

The
prosecution is required to prove the defendant’s guilt in a trial process
against the defence for an adversarial system. Both defence and prosecution
will be required to produce evidence, prepare and present it in a court in
front of a judge. It is the Judge who then ensures that procedures are
correctly followed, listens to the evidence presented, then summarises the
facts of the case to the jury and reminds them of the laws which are pertinent
to the trial. A judge in the adversarial system does not question or probe
further than what is presented by the opposing legal teams as his role is to be
an impartial referee.

 

As
well as jury trials adhering to due process, it is believed to have benefits,
these include; juries being a barrier between the implementation of disliked
laws, allows public participation, juries discuss the legality on the criminal
justice process, they’re not persuaded by professional preconception and they’re
seen as democratic.

However,
not everyone sees this to be true. Some disagree with the idea of juries as
they believe that they’re unrepresentative, juries are believed to not have enough
knowledge of the law, are unable to cope with complex cases and believe that
decisions that juries make can be either based on rhetoric speech rather than
facts or fellow jurors could be dominating. (NEWBURN, 2017)