I was wrestling over whether i should blog about this - and i think that in some small ways, i have a responsibility to do so, having studied in great detail crimes against humanity and due process of law - in spite of the possibility that no one would bother to read about it!
I'll try to keep this as short and as un-technical as possible.
To many, it may not be a big deal - that guy was responsible for the deaths of many and now he has faced justice and paid the price for it.
But did he really face justice? Going by the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, he has every right to be protected by law as you and i have.
Saddam's trial was special - and preceding setting - in that it was the first time a former dictator was tried by a Court of his own country for his crimes. The notion is actually quite an attractive one. Previously - as in the case of eg former Yugoslavia and Rwanda - International Tribunals were set up to try these matters. This could be the start of something good.
Having said that, one must not be bewitched by a seemingly good ideal and ignore the dangers. There were many concerns over the Court which heard the case and over the whole trial process. I will just highlight 4 which bothered me:-
1. While acedemicians felt that it was important that Saddam is tried by his own country's court, one wonders how impartial any judge can be in hearing the case - all the more taking into account the how wide the crimes Saddam was accused of.
2. There were also concerns of whether he was given enough opportunity to defend himself. 3 defense lawyers were murdered during the course of the trial. How many others must have been intimidated from taking up the case.
3. The yardstick used to judge Saddam's guilt was "the court being satisfied" of it - which is a departure from the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt" in normal criminal cases. Why is there a difference? And why should there be an apparently lower standard?
4. Finally, there was no appeal process. Once the court had reached a decision, it was cast in stone!!!! This really left me bewildered - this to me is one of an important safeguard in any legal process in court. Courts are run by humans, human are fallible and therefore mistakes can happen. There should always be an avenue for appeal or at least a review. But none was afforded to Saddam.
And i dun even want to get into the issue of death penalty.
Why should all this matter? Even if the process was not right, it's OK - he probably was guilty anyways.
But who are we to judge? In any event, justice must be blind - meaning that anyone and everyone should be treated in the same fair way - for if the standards are lowered now, it can and will be applied to others in future. Whatever decisions we make today has an effect in the future - a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane in another part of the world.
Imagine if you were a wrongly accused person being tried by an impartial judge, not being allowed adequate legal counsel, having a lower standard of proof applied on him and not being given a chance to appeal against any decision reached? Imagine if your life was hanging on the balance.
Saddam is gone - and maybe, rightly so. But if the imperfections of the process which got him there are not corrected, it is submitted that his trial could mark the start of the slippery slope (yes, the famous s.s theory - can't run away from it) to a place where the innocent is denied justice.
The ends can never justify the means, especially if the means goes against all that the end is trying to achive.
*I love this song!!! One of me fav jazz songs - and the version by this lass from Norway was one of the earliest rendition that i heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment