Editorial

All men and women are born equal and free. For different reasons, not all remain thus and, in terms of status and wealth at least, various classes do exist. However, when it comes to a human being's dignity and rights, no distinctions can or should be made. This especially when administering justice in a court of law.

Lady Justice is blind-folded not to be oblivious of peculiar circumstances that may prevail in a case. Justice must be blind to a person's sex, colour, creed, physical appearance, wealth and similar earthly attributes. A person must be judged on the merits of the case, circumstances that are evaluated by an adjudicator, be that a member of the judiciary or a member of the public in case of trials by jury.

In a functioning democracy, absolute respect for the rule of law is a must. Of course, one is free to point out what to one could appear to be flaws in the system or, indeed, abuse but nobody can arrogate to oneself the function of a court of law.

This has to be borne in mind if society decides - as it very well may, and why not - to debate whether the jury system requires to be re-thought, particularly where the expert opinion is not taken up by the jurors, as happened just a few days ago .

A man had been arraigned and charged with the wilful murder of his wife as she lay in a hospital bed three years ago. The defence counsel pleaded insanity in the Magistrates' Court and a team of three psychiatric experts was appointed to look into the matter.

The psychiatrists concluded that the accused was not in the right state of mind when he allegedly stabbed his wife to death.

Jurors twice decided otherwise; the first time in May 2007, when the trial had been declared null due to an irregularity, and again a few days ago. Now, the man will be tried over his wife's murder.

Whenever situations arise where technical opinion is not accepted by the jury, the question naturally arises of whether the trial by jury is best suited for cases dealing with complex technical issues like, say, banking fraud.

To many, such situations do not diminish the central role that jurors play in guaranteeing the due process of law where the guilt or the innocence of an accused is to be determined by one's peers and not by judges or by technical experts who, of course, play an important part in any trial. These are to leave ordinary citizens to understand and determine what the acccused was going through.

There is no harm in debating whether the jury system works and, if not, whether another efficient alternative exists. More importantly, however, what the hospital stabbing case brings to the fore is a discussion on whether the opinion of a group of nine lay people should over-rule the informed and technical evaluation of experts.

So, the matter raised by this latest verdict is worth debating publicly. However, in doing so, one must clearly distinguish between discussing who in general is to determine the state of mind of the accused at the time a crime is allegedly committed and whether one is guilty of that crime or not. The two are not one and the same thing.