EDITORIAL - Time to fix jury system

The lack of jurors to try serious cases is a troubling, albeit familiar, story for us in Jamaica. Judging from recent events at the Home Circuit Court, the problem appears to have grown in scale and seems set to overwhelm an already hobbling justice system.

It is scandalous that accused persons who have been in custody for years should have their cases put off because jurors can't be found, as happened up to Thursday in the case of Adidja Palmer, the entertainer who goes by the name Vybz Kartel, and his co-accused. (A panel was finally mustered on Friday morning).

The judge was correct when he questioned how in a city of one million persons it had become so difficult to find 12 persons to serve on a panel. He expressed the view that the State was not making enough effort to get jurors to court.

We need fast solutions to this crisis. All the relevant parties, including court administrators, the Bar Association, and the police, must now get together to reform the jury system. The reform must include an examination of the exceptions with a view to eliminating many of the occupational riders stipulated by the Jury Act.

Why, for example, are civil servants exempted from jury duty? Is it that their job as a servant of the Government is considered too important for them to spend time away from their desks? And even after they have retired, why can't they serve as jurors? How can we then justify the small-business owner having to close his operation for roughly a month to perform this civic duty? It seems there is an urgent need to widen the pool from which to find eligible jurors.

NEW STRATEGIES NEEDED

The detention and courts section, which is responsible for serving summonses, needs to devise new strategies to ensure that persons are duly served, and those who neglect to show up should be brought to court to explain their absence and stringent fines imposed if there are no legitimate excuses.

We talk a great deal about democracy and freedom, but often our citizens forget they have a part to play in fostering and protecting this privilege. Democracy can only work when citizens participate in the mechanics of their community, which includes jury duty. This is a cornerstone of democracy. It is important that people see this as an honour instead of a burden.

Many will argue that serving as a juror is inconvenient. People lead busy lives, and also, because of apathy, many moan and groan when they are required to do jury duty.

A juror's inconvenience pales in significance to the anxiety and suffering of the victims and their loved ones who are involved in the case, although we concede that some persons shirk duty because of security concerns.

The problems with juror shortages and the consequent inertia on the justice system further support calls for more trials to be decided by judges instead. Doing away with juror trials in most instances would significantly grease the wheels of justice which have been retarded by non-participation.

If we don't pursue new initiatives to increase jury participation, officialdom must seriously consider placing verdicts in the hands of judges, whom polls show to have among the highest levels of public trust.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.