RE-INTRODUCE JURY SYSTEM

In a democratic society, it is certainly desirable that civic participation should feature in the judicial process. In proceedings in which a defendant's rights are at risk, it is particularly important; the influence of civic participation may increase the court's sensitivity to human rights.

It is true we are critical of the people running our government. Some groups or movements, in fact, overdo it. Yet, it is simply irritating to hear a ruling government speaks with arrogance and condescension even though the system was adopted as part of government-driven legal reforms rather than pursued as public consensus.

Malaysia has become an increasingly democratic society and hope to extend this, demonstrating its sensitivity to human rights.

As the changes have outpaced the Malaysian people's perception, it seems likely that Malaysian’s reforms will face similar challenges to those experienced by other countries.

A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law. The petit jury or trial jury hears the evidence in a case and decides the disputed facts and usually consists of 12 jurors

A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings which are then applied by a judge. It is to be distinguished from a bench trial where a judge or panel of judges make all decisions.

English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right.

Juries weigh the evidence and testimony to determine questions of fact and of law. Jury determination of questions of law, sometimes called jury nullification, may lead to the overturning of a verdict by the judge. Countries around the world are embracing the jury system in a wave of judicial reform.

The jury is the vanguard of the people’s will. The former Soviet republics of Russia and Kazakhstan have introduced the jury system to resolve legal disputes, and the trend is sweeping across many nations in Asia, East Asia, Central America, and South America. For example, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, and China are transforming their legal systems to incorporate lay-jury trials.

Jury trials provide an open forum for the evaluation of cases, and outcomes more likely reflect the public will, and the jury system also makes the justice process more transparent, reduces government corruption, and decreases the likelihood of wrongful convictions. The greatness of the jury system is that the government has to present evidence to the people,"

The jury system also affords nations a degree of self-determination that’s particularly valuable during times of social unrest. Juries can be a forum for dissenting voices, because the community decides the fate of activists arrested for protesting government policies. The jury represents a check on the power of the government to restrict those voices, and it is also a check on external influence on their own government."

On the issue that judges are more prone to bribery, judges may be bribed much easier because a party only has to deal with one person.

The jury system may bring other benefits. It can work as an educator of citizens by imbuing and nurturing their understanding of the role of both the rule of law and human rights. It should secure political neutrality in prosecutors' exercise of their power. Malaysia has, historically, suffered the chronic disgrace of prosecutors bowing to political pressures. The jury system would provide a legitimate constraint upon a prosecutor's power.

Exclusively by: mi1