THE EDITOR, Sir:
JUSTICE IS analogous to psychological constructs such as fear and anxiety, in as far as measurement is concerned. Justice cannot be measured directly because it is abstract in nature. However, there are observable elements which are able to indicate the absence or presence of justice and, in effect, the quality of justice. If this begs the question, quality refers to 'perceived' fairness of justice-based decisions.
Justice is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as fairness or the exercise of authority in the maintenance of right. For clarification, the same source defined 'right' as the state of being entitled to a privilege or immunity.
It is reasonable to suggest that in the justice system the jury, with its legal power, has a 'collective' authority to decide whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty. The jury is the authority that is vested with the onus to maintain legal rights. If given the chance to exercise its authority, the jury's decision must be respected and free from political and extended social dabbling.
It is no doubt, and rightly so, that people will be philosophical in their thinking patterns. Philosophical thinking is often based on interests and 'hypothesis', hence the existence of diverse perspectives on any issue, social or political. Is justice, in regard to judicial proceedings, the responsibility of the government or the jury, which is a microcosm of the ordinary citizens in the society?
The appropriate and acceptable quality of any single jury mechanism, by virtue of adequate screening, pursued with a high level of validity, is one reason to accept its final decision.
I am, etc.,
CANUTE WHITE
superpower342002@yahoo.ca
Via Go-Jamaica
