Judicial matters are grave issues that must be treated with the seriousness that they deserve. In essence, there are many cases where judgments are issued without the full participation of the jury. Such situations always end in appeal or foul cry by the defendant or the complainant. In the case where there is a proposal to adjust the changes in the bench sitting and the requirement also to modify the collective judgments, one should seek to inquire the implications of such decisions on the bearing and the progress of the court process.
There is a real need to change the jury from 12 to 6. The high number of 12 may be hard to achieve at all times that a sitting is needed. With such a high number, it is hard because at moments one judge may be unwell, at some point the other may be engaged in other commitments. Thus, I am in full support of the decision to reduce the jury from the 12 to 6; which is a more manageable number to achieve.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There is always need to have a unanimous decision for a judgment to be deemed as fair. When the verdict of the jury angles towards the minority, then it is considered as unfitting for the court process. I am of the support that the conclusion of the new bench of 6 must always be unanimous for it to pass. The first proposal to do away with the unanimous decision does not augur well for a justice system. At the same time, the lowering of the number to 6 may imply ease to compromise the bench, since they are not so many. However, the need to lower the setting to the number 6, which is an even number, will make the justice system so easy to run. In case of an even decision, then the verdict of guilty is upheld.
