Would you trust your peers' judgement?

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail believes that Malaysians are now ready to play the role of jurists. He has called for the return of trial by jury.

Jury trial was abolished over a decade ago, because then-law minister Syed Hamid Albar had argued that ordinary Malaysians were ill-equipped to weigh up evidence and decide on the fate of an accused person. By doing away with an unqualified jury, it would hasten court proceedings.

The AG reckons Malaysians are now educated enough to decide on court cases. He said that Malaysians had matured since trials by jury were dropped, and that people were now able to think carefully over the facts of a case.

He stated: "People are more well-read, well-informed and competent in discussing current issues. You can see this from the depth of public comments in the papers. I'm confident in the public's ability to participate in our trials."

Well, I disagree. Trial by one’s peers has become a joke in America and other places in the west, where jurists are known to be so biased and emotional that verdicts had not been fair or serve justice. Let’s examine a few factors that may apply to the Malaysian scenario.

Prejudice – in the USA, lawyers would go through a process where each side selects jurists they reckon won’t be prejudiced their case. The very existence of such a proceeding merely proves that the US justice system is aware laypeople, being untrained human beings, cannot assume the clinical unemotional and technically competent ability to evaluate presented arguments and evidence.

In the infamous OJ Simpson cases, the accused was found not guilty in the criminal trial (by a mainly black jury), but guilty in the civil trial (by a mainly white jury). Well, so much for the jury system.

Politics - In Australia, in a well-known trial, a member of the jury was, unknown to the courts, a staunch supporter of a political party. The retired leader of the political party was being prosecuted for corruption in one of Australia’s most notorious cases. That member of the jury forced the jury to dismiss the charges by overpowering the will of the members. After the case, other members of the jury cried about how he harassed and bullied them in giving way to his pre-determined verdict.

It did demonstrate how strong and diabolically manipulative he was while the other members of the jury were a bunch of hopeless useless wimps. What good was trial by jury then?

Attitude – Some members of the jury in the USA and Australia were reported to rush to a speedy verdict, not based on evidence, by more by their callous wish for convenience because some wanted to finish their jury tour and go home. So f**k the accused. “Either return a verdict of guilty or not, and let’s be finished with the bullsh*t” was the attitude of some.

‘Don’t break rice bowl’ syndrome – Malaysians especially Chinese are notorious for this. In other words, some would rather pass a verdict of not guilty because they couldn’t stand the thought of sending an accused to jail.

Threats – a very real possibility, no, make that probability in Malaysia.

Corruption-bribery – tell me about it!

‘Lawyer buruk’ (barrack room lawyer) syndrome – some members of the jury would be completely feral as they disregard court arguments and evidence because they have already formed their ‘judgements’ according to their own gospel. I have heard a few of these ‘lawyer buruk’ in coffee shops as they judged, executed, pardoned, jailed and dismissed various cases around the entire globe ranging from war crimes to adultery.

Race – need I say more?

Religion – Hmmm

What do you think?