Jury trial is best

Re: “Death penalty no solution to crime”, Editorial, May 8.

This is probably one of the most thoughtprovoking editorials in a long time. It will no doubt ignite argument among even the most educated, rational and sedate readers.

To me it illustrates one serious flaw in the justice system, that one is tried by a panel of judges, and not by a jury of one’s peers.

If only a jury trial were to have taken place for the two young Myanmar men accused in the Koh Tao murders of two British tourists.

With the evidence being so flimsy, rushed, flawed and sloppy because the local police had to “shine”, a jury, instructed to take all into account, and not to convict if there was the slightest shadow of reasonable doubt, would have set these young men free.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a powerful phrase. It can make or break a case. But somehow, a good defence lawyer and a respectable, learned and impartial judge would instruct the jury about the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and hopefully justice might be done, or perhaps not.

In the case of the six men accused of killing a handicapped bread vendor (while people of course gawked, but did nothing to help or intervene — how well I know this from personal experience): there were witnesses, and “beyond a shadow of doubt” might prove justice is not totally dead.

Like every verdict in a jury trial, there is always the appeals system, so all is not really lost, until a final decision is made by a good legal system, not by a general holding the reins of power.

If the death penalty is the only solution, let those passing it make sure they are doing so “beyond a shadow of doubt”.