AG has made a new proposal to bring back the juror system to our current practice in handling court cases. Some shows their support, the others show defiance to the proposal. And myself? I guess there are points worth deep consideration before we agreed to continue such practice.
The decision to leave one's life in the hands of the laymen is such a big thing. Not only the laymen does not have adequate background and knowledge in legal matters, but that also means massive costs involve in acquiring the appropriate person to act as jurors. Being a juror, you must be impartial, must deliver verdict based on facts and not driven by emotional sentiments. Such a huge responsibility isnt it? However, appointing them will also means we can eliminate some corrupt practice amongst the professional, i.e lawyers and judges. They are outsiders, have no relation with the person being charged, hence they can view and weigh the evidence nicely, without external influence. But things definitely change if they were offered bribes. Am not sure whether the proposed system is similar like the one used in UK, whereby jurors being secluded and disallow contact with their families/anyone during the whole court trials.
Well lets just see what happen next, whatever it is i hope it'll be the best practice that can be think of, for the benefit of all. Most important thing, the convicted gets what they deserve, the innocents get free, and the trials duration being held at a much shorter period than what we're having right now.
p/s: cepatla pukul 530pm hehe