Dear Editor,
In the European wars of the twentieth century, many, many men were sent to their slaughter in trench warfare because that was the way they did things then.
I imagine that generals and leaders were remorseful about the number of deaths but that was the way things were done and it was necessary to get on with it.
This is what I thought about when I read the Stabroek News editorial for 28 September on restarting physical jury trials.
When we compel people to attend court physically to serve as jurors or to give evidence, we put them and their families at the risk of death. They do not choose to be jurors or witnesses. That choice is made for them. Either they go or the State exercises its powers of punishment over them.
Although the State can say that it has taken every precaution it can to reduce any risk to persons compelled to serve as jurors and to give evidence, it cannot say that it has completely erased the risk of death to them or their families. Any person who leaves their house, as we see in the newspapers daily, suffers the risk of death.
When I had to go to court for election matters in March before virtual hearings, I thought every day about the fact that my choice to participate could cost the lives of my parents, my wife or my baby, or all of them, with which I would have to live for the rest of my own life if spared. In that case, I chose to go to court. In this case there is no choice.
It could be said that these very people choose to go to work or to the market or the supermarket and this is no different. The difference is, quite clearly, choice. In that case, the State does not compel them to do so. They choose to put their lives at risk and they choose what levels of precaution to take. In this case they must go because the State requires it.
That choice to work or get groceries is often a hypothetical choice because one must earn and get provisions to live but it is, nevertheless, a choice and is not imposed by the State. A person required by the State to be a juror or to give evidence in court does not even have this limited choice. They must go or they will be punished and then, after punishment, must still be a juror or give evidence.
Until the State can guarantee that no one’s life will be at risk when physical jury trials restart, the rights of people in jail waiting on trial should be balanced with the rights of other people who must attend court to participate in those trials simply because every time they attend court physically, they face death.
The Constitution guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law when a person is charged with a criminal offence.
These elements can all be met in fully virtual hearings without risking the lives of people who have no choice in the matter. Until they can be met in physical hearings without any risk, no one should have to face death because the State made them go to court to participate in a criminal trial, even with distancing and safety measures, simply because that is the way we do things and it is necessary to get on with it.
Yours faithfully,
Kamal Ramkarran
