Let me again make a reflection on another issue about the implementation of laws and the efficiency of our justice system. A lot had already been said about our justice system as favoring those who are rich and being anti-poor. Being rich means you can afford a "better" lawyer. Having a better lawyer means that you will have the better justice!? This insinuates that "justice" is dependent on having a better lawyer? And I thought, justice is about seeking and bringing out the truth and punishing the guilty and freeing the innocent? If guilty, the task of the lawyer is not to make his client not guilty but to make sure that the penalty to be given is according to law! If not guilty, he makes sure that he will do everything according to the dictates of the law to prove the innocence of his client!
But it seems that our laws and lawyers had other things in mind(?). I am coming from a layman's point of view as far as the succeeding reflections are concerned. Now, I see the practice of law as not only protecting the rights of the guilty from being given undue punishment and doing everything for the innocent to be free, but also to free the guilty from conviction. Worse, to make guilty those without crime! Most of these are courtesy of the presence of lawyers that are "de campanilla" (which are available to moneyed clients) and at times in cooperation with some corrupt or poor law enforcers and biased judges. The whole justice system involves law enforcement. Because of the many legal technicalities provided so as to protect the undue conviction of the guilt-less, in the process, the guilty also benefit by having the opportunity to throw everything provided by law. (Some?) Lawyers defend these seeming "flaw" by the dictum, " It is better to free (ten) guilty persons than punish an innocent one!" Or something similar to this.
The rationale for such a dictum seems clear. Justice means taking all precautions not to punish a guilt-less person even at the expense of freeing a guilty one. They call it, "reasonable doubt". It means that if there is the presence of even an iota of doubt in the guilt of a person either with facts, testimonies or legal procedures (technicalities), the person can not be convicted regardless of the other facts or testimonies. We already have heard of a certain person seen by eyewitnesses to have done a crime but was set free just because the law enforcers violated some rights of the accused or had mishandled the evidences. As it happens, it takes great and diligent effort to convict but it is easy to dismiss the case! It is much much harder to prove the crime than to render the case irrelevant and immaterial.
But the questions still begs. If the guilty is set free, then, he can still repeat his crime. (Di ba nga eh, guilty?). If they are ten guilty persons who were set free, then we have ten more of the same in our midst capable of committing the same crimes?! Certainly, they are dangerous to all of us. Certainly, they are threats to us! Then, how can it be called justice when one who is guilty, in truth, would be set free because of legal violations or technicalities? Would that person who was really guilty but was freed because of technicalities be reformed? What are the protections of society from their aggression? And worse, if someone who is innocent is found guilty and dies because of it! (Kawawa naman! And this had happened already!)
But these are not the only choices available to the lawyers or to our justice system. Free the innocent and convict and punish the guilty. We should not rely on the dictum above. bear it in mind, but strive not settle for it. "Reasonable doubt" should not just be any or an iota of it, but as it says, "reasonable". It should be substantial and that the possibility of rendering a true judgment based on evidences and testimonies by witnesses is not at all possible. But mere technicalities against an eyewitness and proven crime should not prevail or set free a guilt person. No wonder, many of those who are supposed to be in jailed and punished are scot free and still merrily and wantonly practicing their usual evil ways. The law had become their defender and shield. The protection of the guiltless-accused had benefited more the guilty. No wonder, many would not want to have anything to do with a legal procedure because it is not only expensive and a bother, but justice is not assured. It is really hard to be in a society where the law renders it hardest to convict even in a crime with many witnesses just because that society is afraid to punish the guilt-less.
Hopefully, all those involved in the justice system would work as one for the sake of everyone. If an efficient and effective justice system is present, citizens are more at peace and criminals are more in distress. The reverse makes the citizens in distress while the criminals are more confident. Sadly, the latter seems to be the most accurate description of our present justice system. Just tiis na lang!
No comments:
Post a Comment