Manipulation Of The Jurisdiction System: A Weakness That Everybody Knows But Can Do Nothing About

(From A Layman Point Of View )

"It's better to free 1000 criminals, than to punish one innocent man" –This is the principle that the jurisdiction system use. It's noble, right? We must understand that it's not fair to punish someone just because someone else accuses the person of doing something wrong. There must be enough evidence that support that the person is really committing the offense. If we recall it right, in every trial, the prosecution must state the DATE and the PLACE of the offense. It's all logic right? We can't simply make a police report accusing someone of doing a serious offence, but all we can come up with is, "Err…actually I don't know when he steals my car, I don't even know where he did it." *giggles. That's ridiculous! Talking about DATE and PLACE – these points are the most manipulable of them all! I must assume you guys don't know it yet and you guys are interested to know…and I must assume that you guys can't wait for me to go to the next paragraph. *giggles. (okay, kidding :P)

The PLACE and the DATE of the offense are among the most potential weapons could be used by the defendant's counsel to try and drop the case. During the hearing of the case, the prosecution must prove that the case "worth" a further trial, so that it won't waste more time, because if the defendant can't prove that there's a prima facie, it's no use because according to the system, this is equals to NO CASE. In most of the cases that I have followed, the winning goes to the defendant if the attorney could prove that there's at least an alibi (to me alibi means something or someone that could prove that the accused is at a different place during the time that the plaintiff claims to be the time of the offense took place…is it right? *giggles). So, all the attorney should do is bring forward an alibi. Usually, the alibi "could be created", don't you think so? The accused will get the upper hand when there's totally no eye-witness that can prove that he was there at the location where the offense took place, during the said time. So, even if the defendant creates an alibi, nobody is there to prove otherwise. Is this to me, the easiest way to get acquitted. Yes, even if the accused is "the real criminal". So, it's not too much to say that this is one form of weakness right?

Another thing is to get a "smart attorney" to defend you. After I watched some of the movies and dramas about the court proceeding, I understand even more how they carry the cases. Of course you would say to me, what I saw in movies/dramas is nothing like the real thing right? I know that but how far different can they be? It's still about giving evidence and proving all the same things; alibis, prima facie and all that stuff is applicable in all the legal system in most countries I believe?

Okay…why is it getting a smart (and cunning) defense attorney is important? It's because it does matter if the lawyer is good with words or not. It's not against the law that the lawyers will try to confuse the opponent's witnesses to make them sound like they are not sure of what they say. They will twist the questions to make the witnesses sound like they are lying or just making up stories. This happens a lot during cross-examinations. If the witnesses feel intimidated or provoked by the "series of attack" by the opponent's lawyer, he/she will start giving some confusing answers and this will affect the decision of the juries. The best approach is "try to prove the witnesses are lying" or are not being honest. If in one way, the lawyer could prove it, the rest of the statements by those particular witnesses are considered not reliable. This is the method that prove to work wonders for the defendants. I saw even high-profile murder trial (for example: an illegal immigrant murdered an Assistant Minister) managed to free the defendant from the accusation by using this method. Actually, this left a lot of people unsatisfied. A CRIMINAL IS AT LARGE!, that's how they reacted towards the acquittal.

Another weapon is – CREATE A REASONABLE DOUBT! I think that this thing really helps if the person isn't guilty. But what if he's guilty and he's saved by reasonable doubts? This will depend solely on the defendant's lawyer. He/she needs to be so smart and quick on his mind. Ask the right questions and attack at the right moments, and most importantly, attack at the "right thing!". (*giggles). I don't mind if reasonable doubts are all they need to free someone, but LET HIM/HER BE REALLY INNOCENT!

Another approach that I saw could work (though only on tv). It's about "playing with the emotions". I'm sorry but I'm not so familiar about the criteria of the juries that will be picked to "give the verdict". Well, just for your information, I actually took a subject called "MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM" (SISTEM PERUNDANGAN DI MALAYSIA) back in university, and I liked the subject so much. (I only managed to get a B+ though. *giggles). I think it's from there that I learnt abit about the criteria of the juries. The juries must be among the people who have no direct connection, no influence and no type of interest whatsoever with anything that has to do with the legal system. (Oh my, I'm not really sure of this.) So, this is actually one manipulable aspect that the defense could play along with. It's usually during the closing (or what they call it in English? Hahaha, must be careful with this formal things.), where each of the lawyers from both plaintiff and defendant will have the chance to wrap or conclude all the important points for the juries to reevaluate one last time before they come up with the verdict. This is usually the time when the lawyer could play with the emotions. They can talk about the common things that could trigger sympathy or anger in the juries so that they will gave the verdict that will go against the plaintiff/defendant that cause the sorrow to the other party. Don't you think this is one form of weaknesses? That emotions do the job? This is not a game you know, you can put an innocent person (who looked guilty by evidence on paper) into jail for the rest of his/her life! So, are emotions fit to do the work? But what can we do, the legal system require the juries to be among the normal people who have no knowledge or no direct connection with the legal system, so that they will evaluate the case without getting influenced by their interest or anything. I don't know how serious is this matter, but it happens a lot on tv (especially on PHILLY – my most fav drama about jurisdiction). Anyway, I don't want to be among the juries that decide a person's fate whether or not he/she spends his time in jail. I rather stick to my day job! *giggles.

One more thing…how effective is the jurisdiction system with all these tiny spaces that could actually stop "justice" from being served? Look at the scenario in Malaysia. It's nothing new that we are not happy with the acquittal of the defendants of serious cases that usually involved murders or rapes. Even with the trials that are still ongoing, we wonder what would the outcome be? Will the defendants win by using the advantages of the manipulable points or is it because they are really innocent? But, there's a little to nothing they can do when the evidence is weak. A judge can't convict a defendant by his/her guts feeling, right? They must follow the proper system/procedures, so the burden is on the prosecutors to prove that, LOOK, THIS MAN IS GUILTY. Look at those acquitted faces that escaped from serious punishment…I mean, not that we are trying to judge them. But some of them are accused of doing some very cruel and inhuman offenses. What if they really did it and freed because of the lack of evidence? GETTING ACQUITTED DOESN'T MEAN THEY DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT? They could be free from the punishment decided in the courtroom, but the punishment from heaven? That's a matter between every individual with God. We are nobody to judge others, especially when not even the courtroom could convict them. Be reminded that "One is considered innocent until proven guilty".

Anyway, I should salute the legal system in Malaysia that despite all these little spaces that could free the wrong man, still we heard enough that the REALLY BAD MEN who proved to be ANIMALS inside a human body got convicted finally. In most of the cases, it wasn't hard for them to prove so. I think it must be a help from heaven that made the way easy for the legal system to serve its justice on these people. Remember Canny Ong murder (who was raped and then burnt)? Nurul Huda (a 7 years old girl who got raped and left to die)? I remember a few more serious cases and they got the defendants convicted. I'm actually glad to remember that "It's better to free a 1000 criminals than to punish 1 innocent man" – so we can rest assured that the convicts are really GUILTY by all evidence, beyond reasonable doubts. I just hope that all the real criminals won't manipulate this principle to get away from the crimes they committed. Better yet, WHY DO CRIMES? Life is so short, people. Don't waste this life with doing bad things to other people. Please realize that other people have their hopes and dreams too, please don't put that to end just because you don't have hopes and dreams for your own life. I WISH THAT EVERYONE HAS "A HEART"! May Justice Rule!