Asian Angle | Would Hong Kong be better off without the jury system?
There is an emotional attachment to trial by juries; viewed dispassionately, however, the system raises a number of issues
Barack Obama’s high profile appearance as a prospective juror in Chicago last week gave the ancient practice of trial by jury a public relations boost. The former US president wore the same red “juror” sticker as everyone else but arrived with a secret service detail and signed books for fellow jurors. A statement issued later conveyed his belief that jury duty is a core obligation of citizenship.
A different jury, in February, had also been split on whether Tsang was guilty of accepting HK$3.8 million worth of renovation work on his intended retirement penthouse as a bribe. That jury found him guilty on a separate charge of misconduct in public office.
Hung juries are an inevitable part of the system. Jurors are not always going to take the same view of the evidence or agree on whether the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But while the jurors did their duty, the outcome in Tsang’s trial is inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Would it have been better for the case to have been tried by a judge instead of a jury? Or, to pose a question some might regard as heresy, would Hong Kong be better off dispensing with the jury system entirely?