THE EDITOR: Do our so-called intellectuals really live in TT?
I am truly flabbergasted at times when I hear and/or read some of the views expressed by these women and men who are held in such high esteem. What are they leaving for the proverbial man in the street or ordinary citizen.
I was quite dumbfounded by the reaction to the Government's proposed amendments limiting access to trial by jury in criminal matters by the Opposition, some Independent senators, association representative of lawyers and some other individuals and organisations of the intellectual hue.
Let me hasten to add that I have no objection to the matter being sent to a joint select committee of Parliament. That is not my "beef."
Also, I am not going to address, in any detail, the administrative nightmare in corralling potential jurors in a very small population with an extremely high murder rate, and the consequential delays and other administrative inefficiencies.
In this regard, in my view, the Government has put forward very convincing arguments, despite the contrary opinions of some of its detractors.
Nonetheless, it is crystal clear to me that trial by jury is a disservice to justice and at best an anachronism that ought to have been abolished in our jurisdiction decades ago. It, therefore, goes without saying that I do not think the Government's proposal goes far enough, but it is an important first step.
Singapore, one of the safest places to live on this planet, had the good sense to abolish jury trials decades ago. Why are we not following "best practice" if we are serious about getting a handle on crime? I agree that there are other measures to be taken as well, and this is not a panacea, but it is an important aspect of any comprehensive crime-fighting plan.
What is the motivation of some of our citizens? Are they serious about addressing our crime scourge? Are they simply content, for some weird ulterior motive that does not serve the best interest of our nation, with blaming whichever government is in office and thereby passing the buck? Do we really like it so?
Along with preliminary enquiries, trial by jury is a tremendous disservice to justice. I understand why defence attorneys would want to retain the status quo. It works well for them and their clients.
They are able many a time when they have very weak cases to bamboozle the ordinary citizens who serve on juries by making such matters appear so complex and confusing that jurors take what appears to them to be the fail-safe position of acquittal.
Guidance on the law by a judge is often enough ignored by jurors because they simply do not understand certain legal concepts and resort to their inherent biases, which they erroneously think is common sense on display.
This attitude does a serious injustice to the direct victims of crime and, by extension, all other law-abiding citizens. The chances of that sort of behaviour is considerably diminished with a judge-alone trial where a competent judge is fully cognisant of the relevant laws and is trained to
