A case for abolition of jury system!

American Crime Story (Season 1; 2016)

The People v. O. J. Simpson

A 64-year-old man was imprisoned for a year after being caught stealing ten cans of sardines, two bottles of instant coffee powder, and some mouthwash. He was punished with a month's imprisonment.

In the justice system, an individual trusted with the coffers of the nation and its future, accused of amassing RM 42 million for his own needs, gets 12 years in prison. This happened after much public pressure, demonstrations, democratic change of government and taxpayers coughing out more money to finance what turned out to be a non-ending series of trials-within-trials. Because the ex-PM has all the money that can buy justice and legal minds, there is a high possibility that he will end up spending the rest of his royal-pardoned six years under house arrest, in the comfort of his loved ones and window to the outside world. That is the best justice system that money and influence can buy.

This is by no means confined to the third world or despotic governments. It is a worldwide phenomenon.

When the Malaysian courts discontinued the jury trial system in 1995, the naive me thought it was a step backwards for justice. After all, more impartiality is displayed when more people collectively decide, and developed countries, particularly the US, still use jury services. So they must be right, I thought.

The sensational trial of Mona Fandey et al. gruesomely murdering a state assemblyman created such mayhem that the courts thought that trial by jury should be abolished.

The merits and demerits have been in the legal fraternity's imagination for years. In India, the famous 1959 case of a naval officer, Nanavati, murdering his wife's lover created such a storm that the legal system felt the sensationalism surrounding the trial made the juries err on their judgement. The Bombay High Court later reversed the jury's decision of freeing him to impose life imprisonment.

The opponents of the jury system argue that the law is too complex for an average person to comprehend, who may also be swayed by emotion, prejudices and sentiments.

In this time and age, with the bane of knowledge and information, we humans are more confused than ever. Like in the immortalised lines from the movie 'A Few Good Men', the real question is, 'Can you handle the truth?'. With so much information, emotion, biases, innate bigotry and prejudices bottled up within us, how unflinching can be towards the real truth?

This proposition is laid bare in the case People of the Stae of California v. O. J. Simpson, which took place when the American sports icon, Simpson, was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Smith, and her companion, Ron Goldman.

Cuba Gooding Jr as OJ, David Schwimmer as
Robert Kardashian, John Travolta as
Robert Shapiro. 

On the one hand, a black football player who beat the odds with his rags-to-riches story to be super rich, marry a white girl and live in a posh white, exclusive neighbourhood in LA. Some also looked at OJ as Uncle Tom, who had become a white, not as a black man. On the other hand, Nicole has reported domestic abuse in the relationship. When a blood-stained glove with OJ's and both victims' blood was found in the vicinity of the murder, the prosecution went all ballistic to charge him with double murder. They were clear in their approach. It was a case of domestic violence gone overboard.

From the get-go, the defence took a racial slunt towards the case. At a time in America when the police (like now) had the dubious reputation of being overtly racist in the way they handled their affairs. The Rodney King killing and the LA riots were They went along with the idea that the pieces of evidence were planted by bigoted police officers. To top it the lead defence lawyer, John Cochrane, drew in the support of the NAACP (North American Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, founded 1909). The defence tried to recruit as many black jurors as they could. In their mind, even though Simpson had turned into an Uncle Tom-like character with a white wife, country club and all, he was framed because he was black. That is where the defence was looking for sympathy.

With the fueling of fire by the extensive media, the trial became a competition between the whites and blacks of America. The whole trial became a media circus. First, it starts with Simpson engaging in a low-speed police car chase. Then, the trial was televised on Court TV, making people hooked on the twists and turns the case took. By the end of the nine months of trial, people were waiting outside the courthouse with bated breath to hear the jury decision. The jury took less than 4 hours to deliberate. Even though it provided a sound argument backed by scientific data, it was not enough. Simpson had apparently built a fan base among the jurors. They also voted along racial lines. The verdict would have been different if the jury was predominately white. The trial of the century ended with O. J. Simpson walking out a free man. A poll suggested almost 75% of white respondents believed OJ was guilty, whilst about only 25% of blacks thought he was guilty.

What is this about OJ's defence team being a dream team? I suppose it must be a group of morally corrupt individuals who mask themselves behind a law degree, unscrupulously stir sentiments, and churn out uncertainties in investigations and technicalities to create that element of reasonable doubt to crush the conviction. They promise the stars and the moon and charge an arm and a leg.

Robert Kardashian, the estranged husband of Kris Jenner (of the ''Keeping Up with the Kardashians' fame), was on the dream team. As a close friend and an attorney, he completed the whole trial convinced he was defending a guilty guy. To add fuel to the fire, 13 years after his acquittal in 2007, OJ was charged and later imprisoned for 33 years for armed robbery with a mostly white jury. So much for a fair trial and the adage that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are not what you eat!

No disrespect is intended for the believers, but these could be cautionary tales for others.

Recently, a close relative told me that he had made an appointment to meet a holy man at the unusual hour of 3 a.m. It may appear unearthly to some, but to others, it is referred to as 'Brahmamuhurtham'*, one of the most auspicious times of the day. The holy man wanted to dispel him of some negative energies.

Quickly, my mind wandered to the story of P. Rajagopal, the founder of the world-famous chain of South Indian vegetarian restaurants, Saravana Bhava. A classic tale of how capitalism breeds entrepreneurship and how trickle-down economics works is his life story. Starting off as the son of a poor onion farmer, he ran away from home to work as a chaiwala. He later became a sundry shop owner but was restless. Being the pious person he was (he named his shop after Lord Muruga), he consulted a priest-astrologer about his future. By then, he was married to Vani, his first wife.

The astrologer predicted that his horoscope predicted that Rajagopal could be someone world-famous if he dealt with fire. At about that time, a restaurant was on sale. Taking that as a sign from the Universe, he started his first restaurant in 1981. Rajagopal and Vani worked extremely hard. In rolled in cash, the opening of branches and the expanding workforce. Rajagopal was a kind employer, and his workers were extremely loyal to him. He provided them with accommodation, medical benefits, and even holiday packages. In return, he demanded high-quality work (cleanliness and service) and loyalty.

Rajagopal and Vani's married life lost their lustre soon afterwards. In came Rajagopal's second wife, the daughter of one of his staff.

The astrologer was always behind the scenes, periodically advising on how to improve his already successful business in the future. His chain of restaurants had gone global, and Rajagopal was known as a philanthropist who donated to temples and the needy.

By then, Rajagopal was already eyeing another young lassy, the daughter of another employee. The astrologer encouraged Rajagopal, convincing him he would reach greater heights by marrying her. Trying to escape his advances, the girl, Jeevajothi, went on to marry her boyfriend. One thing led to another, and in 2001, Jeevajothi's husband was killed by Rajagopal's henchmen.

With his influence and enormous wealth, Rajagopal managed to keep bail and stay away from prison till his case went up to the Supreme Court in 2019. By then, Rajagopal was quite ill and died at 71 before he could commence his life sentence.

It has been over 15 years since I last patronised a Saravana Bhava outlet. The last time I savoured their thosai and all their vegetarian cuisine, I could not help but imagine all the blood, sweat, lust and murder that went into preparing the dish. It is perplexing that a person who painstakingly ensured his vegetarian (sattvik) preparations were of high quality had no qualms about exhibiting so much violence and went to the extent of murder to achieve his desires. He is not a good poster boy to sell the idea that we are what we eat. Above all, the brain must function, and periodic self-appraisal is mandatory.

The next time someone claims to have accurately analysed your future through horoscopic facial recognition science, palmistry, and chart analysis of your birthdate, be wary. Remember, the higher your climb, the harder the fall and the more painful it will be on your posterior. 

*Brahmamuhurta is a 48-minute period that begins one hour and 36 minutes before sunrise and ends 48 minutes before sunrise.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

As you see it!

Anatomy of a Fall (Anatomie d'une chute, French; 2023)
Director: Justine Triet

We reassure ourselves by telling lies. We are so cock sure that truth will win. It would somehow emerge from the crack to balance the equilibrium of the Universe. One of the half-truths we convince ourselves is that there is a balance of two opposing but sometimes complementary forces; the good and bad, the truth and the lie, the masculine and feminine forces, chaos and order and so forth. The 'truth' wins every time, we con ourselves.

It is all a perspective of the now and the glaring presence of the evidence of the present. No caped sorcerer will ride the high horse of justice to right the wrong. 

That, in my opinion, is the essence of this story. A husband is found dead in his frosted front yard, presumably after a fall from his balcony three storeys up. He was discovered by his blind son, returning from a walk with his guide dog. The wife was alone in the house with blaring music playing on the speaker. Their relationship had seen better times.

The physical fall brings out the metaphorical fall out of love, the fall of status for the husband, and the possible fall into depression of the husband. 

Initial police investigations suggest it could be a suicide, but a recording of the couple's conversation throws a spanner into the works. The wife, an established author, is arrested as the possible suspect of the murderer of her husband. 

The court trials tease out the family dynamics. What starts as the couple falling in love, having a child, and juggling their careers turns murky. In an accident possibly caused by the husband's lackadaisical delay, the son is caught in an accident that causes him to lose his eyesight. The guilt-stricken writer-husband, compounded by the mother's veiled accusations, becomes a wreck. His writing juices dry up, and love falls off the cliff.

The wife is questioned as a possible perpetrator of the crime or maybe accidental death on a possible domestic tussle. Her previous blemishes are exposed. The animosity that arose as she prospered as a prolific writer at the expense of her husband's creative impotence is laid bare. 

The son takes the heaviest brunt of it all. His testimony at the stand may determine how the case turns out for the mother. He is unsure how to look at all of the events. Did his father kill himself? Did his mother kill his husband? These conundrums seem to put a lot of burden on the shoulders of a young early teenager. Everything is confusing. He is pressured to do the right thing, but what is right anymore? 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A case quite bizarre

Indrani Mukerjea: Buried Truth (2024)
Docu-series, 4 episodes.

From the land of the Veda and the Arthashashtra comes an intriguing case of a missing person, which has remained unresolved to date. In the land that believes that every nasty action has a compelling reaction with the belief that no evil deed will not go unpunished in this birth or next, perhaps punishment could only be meted out in the next life.

In 2008, The Wall Street Journal hailed Indrani Mukerjea as one of the 50 ladies to watch, and India conferred her with the award 'Uttar Ratna' for her outstanding work in the art, media, and broadcasting sector. By 2015, she had her hands full fending off money laundering charges and fighting a murder charge.

Her past is blurry for a start. Born Pori Dora, her actual birthdate is queried. In her early teenage years in Guwahati, Assam, she accused her father of sexually molesting her. She went off to Shillong, Meghalaya, for studies, where she met her first husband, Siddharta Das, with whom she had two kids, Sheena and Mikhail. She soon left her kids with her parents to move to Kolkata in 1990. In Kolkata, she married her second husband, Sanjeev Khanna, to have her third child, Vidhie. Vidhie is the main narrator in the documentary. Somewhere along the way, there is even a mention that Sheena could be the product of Indrani's father's despicable act.

In 2001, Indrani moved to Mumbai, where she met Peter Mukerjea. Her recruitment company became a hit, and she dabbled in the media industry. Together with Peter, they climbed the corporate ladder to become prominent figures in Indian media. She was the CEO of a media mogul.

Her daughter, Sheena, appeared in the Mukerjea fold in 2006. Indrani introduced her to her new family as her sister! Sheena also got herself embroiled in the Mumbai corporate rat race. She apparently had a relationship with Peter's son from a previous marriage. Indrani's side was resistant to this relationship.

By 2009, Indrani was pretty much out of the media limelight as her corporate rule went south with accusations of appropriation and money laundering. She left India to live in the UK.

In 2012, Sheena disappeared without a trace. Everybody assumed Sheena had run away from her fiance and had probably gone incognito. Three years later, Indrani was arrested for the murder. Indrani's driver admitted to having helped her to kill and bury Sheena. The driver let her to the remains, but DNA evidence from the body was rejected for technical reasons. The case was twisted, and Indrani, Peter, and the driver got out on bail.

The docu-series is so twisted. It smells of sensationalism and trial by the media. Nobody shows sensitivity to the deceased or the family in the programme. I guess it does not matter as the accused is family (the mother killing her firstborn). The family gave the green light to tell their side of the story, having been in the media, knowing how well media can spin the truth, of which Indrani had been part and that the case is still ongoing; Indrani and the family should know better. Perhaps they are just garnering public sentiments before the case gets mentioned again.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Unsolved murder mystery

Auto Focus (2002)

Director: Paul Schrader

Hogan's Heroes used to be a regular feature on RTM's slot for late-night comedy. It did not leave much of an impression on our minds as it dwelled with something quite uninspiring, in our minds at least. It was about a wise-cracking American General and his staff who were imprisoned in a German POW camp during WW2. They tried to outwit their captors, spy upon them and sabotage their every move. It went on for six seasons. 

The main character, Robert Crane, or rather his death, appeared in one of the crime podcasts. Initially a family man and a church-going Catholic, he got the acquaintance of John Henry Carpenter. Carpenter was an electronic techie who introduced Crane to the then-nascent home videos in the 1965s or so.

As the film puts it, both developed a symbiotic relationship. Crane, through his good looks and contact with showbiz, got in contact with girls, and Carpenter would set the recording devices to record their sexual acts. Over the years, the sheer number of tapes in their collection hit the roof. 

Crane's offers dwindled after Hogan's Heroes. Money troubles crept in. His wife divorced him. He married his co-star, with whom he was already in a relationship. He moved around performing at dinner parties whilst feeding his sex addiction. Carpenter was his partner in crime, helping out in imprinting their trysts on tape.

Crane was found dead, bludgeoned to death and strangled with an electrical cord. Even though Carpenter was high on the suspect list, his crime was never proven. It is believed that they had a falling.

Man's (and women's) curiosity about the forbidden probably started from their stay at the Garden of Eden. Voyeurism must have ensued moments after their banishment from there when Adam became curious about Eve's appendages. As more offspring sprung, rules had to be laid, adding curiosity to the young minds. The subtle art of voyeurism found its place in society. What started as yellow literature in print and illustration has morphed to capture more minds through CCTVs, tapes and now hand-held devices. 

Apparently, there is no shame in viewing it on the sly. Due to its ease of access, everyone is watching it anyway. But God forbid if someone is caught consuming or assumes the role of performer, willingly or otherwise, the whole shebang of shaming and victimisation befalls upon them. It is now perfectly healthy to have a wedded couple in their birthday suits as part of their wedding photoshoot package. YOLO.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The truth will set you free?

Dead to Me (S1-S3, E1-10; 2019-22)
TV Series

The fallen will often be pacified with the conviction that truth will eventually prevail. If someone is accused of something he did not do, he will find solace in telling himself that the truth will set him free. Everybody thinks the Universe will take its own sweet time, but justice will meted out in the end. 

Everyone is told to look at the bigger picture and concentrate on winning the war, not merely the tiny battles. At least, this is what the lawyer will advise his client. The truth will not come out breaking through the walls with a flying cape to save the day. It has to be fought with tooth and nail. Court cases are won by shrewd legalese minds with all the money they can continue paying. The promise of justice at the higher courts is shrouded by the need for more retention fees.

Therefore, I have come to think I will follow the wise words of the not-so-wise Malaysian parliamentarian who went on Hansard saying, "It is not wrong to take a bribe; it is only wrong when you get caught!" One has to look in all directions, cover the bases, dot his 'i's and cross his 't's as and when he is caught in a potentially incriminating situation or even commit a crime himself. Even if he does not get away scot-free, his defence team can at least create an element of doubt in the prosecutor's arguments. 

The law is such a pain that it favours those in power. Even God cannot save his priest, as witnessed by the numerous pending court cases. The only thing that is keeping them away from being cooped behind bars is not God's grace but good old-fashioned moolah that gets them good legal representations!

This dark comedy starts with a mother of two, Jen, a realtor, mourning over the death of her husband. He was hit by a speeding car at 2 o'clock in the morning. Jen attends a support group where she befriends Judy. Unbeknownst to Jen, Judy was the driver of the hit-and-run vehicle. Judy, remorseful of her act, tries to make amends with Jen. Meanwhile, Judy herself is moaning over her five previous miscarriages and her imminent divorce. 

Things become complicated as police investigations hit an impasse. The plot thickens as Jen finds out his loving husband had an affair. Judy discovers that her husband is involved with the Greek mafia. Meanwhile, an argument with Steve ends with Jen killing him and hiding his body in her freezer. The story becomes increasingly complicated with Jen covering her crime, Judy concealing her accident, and both developing an unbreakable bond. Only on the TV/silver screen, a morbid subject like death and murder can be turned into entertainment. And a perfect crime is actually possible.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Mercy? Murder?

Mary Kill People (Miniseries; 2017-19)
S1-S3; E1-E6

In 1967, surrounding the abortion debate, psychologists came up with a moral question, the trolley dilemma. It involved a speeding train about to hit five people working on the track. You are given a switch to divert the train onto another track. Unfortunately, it would involve hitting and killing one person. The question was, would you sacrifice one life in place of five. People found it easier to kill one as it is better in the greater scheme of things.

Over the years, the dilemma scenario was expanded. One involved the interviewee being allowed to push a fat man before the train to dampen its speed. People refused to agree to pushing someone personally, i.e. killing someone, to save lives. The consensus was unanimous - no killing. We have been hardwired to treat life as something so sacrosanct that we have no business ending it.

No matter how bad a convicted has been in real life, the general public, at least, refuses to be the one who would condemn another person to death. What if, despite all the advancements in forensic sciences, the public inadvertently sends an innocent person to the gallows/electric chair/lethargic injection/ firing squad. It is not that such things are not happening.

Let us turn to people who are genuinely in a near-death situation. Maybe they are afflicted with a terminally ill disease where all treatment modalities have failed and are spending their time in their few days or months of painful life. What if all cognitive faculties have failed and are left with a vegetative body kept alive, electrophysical only, by machines until the plug is pulled. 

Is it justified to insist that life is so sacrosanct that only the Giver had the right to take back what He gave, not mere mortals? Does easing the pain not include ending the very life that is inevitably coming to an end, albeit so ever slowly? 

Increasingly, more societies are asking these tough questions. The answers are more straightforward if theology is put aside and objectively argued with tangible facts and figures. In this time and age, as society has to deal with the longevity of its citizens and the costs of fighting aggressively near-fatal situations, resources could be set aside for the living and those worth saving. Or is every life worth saving, old, young, poor, rich, elite and pauper?

This miniseries does not ask or answer these questions directly or indirectly. It tells of a team of a nurse and doctors who identify patients who are terminally ill and seek relief from their sufferings. As euthanasia is illegal worldwide, this team offers a hush-hush discrete service for a fee. Their preferred choice of poison is liquid thiopental mixed with champagne. They hope their sympathetic act will go unnoticed as the victims are dying anyway. Unfortunately, sometimes, things do not work out as planned, and they encounter unexpected hurdles and failed attempts. To top it all, a police team is hot on their trail, eager to catch them in the act.

The medical dictum dictates 'primum non nocere' - first, do no harm. Are we causing harm or alleviating pain by offering medically assisted suicide after a comprehensive, multipronged assessment by medical and psychological experts?

The Utilitarianism school of thought would believe that killing one to save five is appropriate for the greater good. Deontological ethics dictate that ethical actions follow universal law. Wilfully killing someone is wrong. Period.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.