Iam amazed when I occasionally come across people who, without a qualm, declare that they never read newspapers or do so very rarely; and there are not a few. Most of them roundly declare that they refuse to be upset by what they read and would rather live in an ivory tower of their own devising. While I disapprove of this ostrich-like attitude, I can at times well understand why people simply give up trying to make sense out of life.

One particularly vulnerable hot spot for bewilderment and incomprehension is the way the law works, or doesn't, depending on how you look at it. While the tag of the law being an ass was probably coined to encapsulate if not excuse all its vagaries and eccentricities, we all presume that judgments are handed down according to the strictest and most stringent of rules which is why being a magistrate or a judge is not a job to be sneezed at.

These rules also ensure that the presiding magistrate or judge is unable to be swayed by personal feelings or inclinations. The intrinsic gravitas of the judiciary is all part and parcel of this. Because the laws are man-made and have been honed and perfected over centuries of use, the finality of a judgment is arrived at only after deep study of the cases made by the prosecution and the defence plus the conclusion reached by the jury. Then, and only then, can a magistrate or judge arrive at a summing up and a judgment.

Therefore, it was natural to expect that a suspended sentence given to a driver responsible for the deaths of two teenage girls be received with incredulity by the families of the victims and society at large. A two-year jail sentence suspended for four years and a fine of a paltry €4,000 is less than nothing compared to the lives of two human beings: One would expect a more severe sentence had they been sheep or dogs instead of two girls whose lives were terminated so summarily. I am of course convinced that Magistrate Antonio Micallef Trigona had his very good reasons and that this sentence was not delivered lightly, however, I also strongly believe that no matter how severe the sentence might have been, nothing, but nothing, could ever bring those poor girls back to life again. Can one in all honesty ask the parents of those two girls to forgive the driver? Will they ever find it in their hearts to do so? This is what they must do as, otherwise, the bitterness and frustration of this judgment will kill them.

And what about the paedophile whose name was not published by court order? The 21-year-old who is part of a global network uncovered through international investigation? This man was sentenced to one year in prison suspended for three years. Then, compare that to the VAT department employee in the scam case, who after receiving a suspended sentence is appealing to have the general interdiction lifted.

He was responsible for accepting a bribe of €466. Such is the apparent inconsistency of court judgments that one can hardly be surprised that many people are unable to distinguish right from wrong anymore and which is probably why people give up reading newspapers as their sense of fairness and justice seems to be insulted at every turn.

Blogs have made it possible for more people to express their opinion. They are important and the judiciary should make it a point to read them. The judiciary is dispensing justice for the people and this is why it should always be aware of public opinion. By not doing so they will be as ostrich-like as those people who refuse to read newspapers.

I am, I know, treading on slippery ground but I am a man of the people and, as such, I, like many others, prefer life to be neat and compartmentalised. I want to know what to expect. Reading a newspaper is sometimes like playing Russian roulette. Try to make sense out of climate change and global warming, President Barack Obama's Healthcare Reform problems and his Nobel Prize along with his defence of "just wars"; as if anything about war is just. One just cannot dig it and the daily news as it filters in within seconds through the cyberwaves is like riding a rollercoaster.

One, therefore, expects the Courts to be the one stabilising and dependable entity where things always and invariably make sense and one is sure to receive justice. When the law appears to be applied nonsensically and judgments appear to be given inconsistently then the judiciary's credibility is sure to suffer. This credibility's recent wounds, still fresh and open, will then surely fester. This is why a "never complain, never explain" attitude by the court is bewildering and frustrating.

At least in Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi's persecution mania has reached monumental proportions, we can readily admire the steadfastness and consistency of the judiciary who refuse to give the megalomaniacal media mogul cum Prime Minster the legal immunity that he expects by right just as if he were the reincarnation of Caesar Augustus.

kzt@onvol.net