Court Of Law Vs Public Opinion

---

 



 It is interesting to note that social media users have their own version and standard of justice.
Assuming the Auditor-General’s Report found a government agency to have incurred a gigantic loss, in the court of public opinion, that per se is sufficient to pass a guilty verdict against a person who helms such a government agency.
Politicians are definitely aware that in a court of law, their culpability could only be judged by the rules of evidence. The admissibility of proofs in any court of law would be subject to very strict rules of evidence and procedures.
Hence, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for evidence.
Even the principle of similar fact evidence, which refers to evidence of past similar misconduct by any accused, is highly irrelevant to the charge. Hence, such evidence is generally inadmissible due to the risk of prejudice against the accused.
Nevertheless, the court of public opinion seems to endorse the application of the doctrine of similar fact evidence against some persons, especially politicians.
Sentiments and perceptions
In the court of public opinion, the public employs a different set of criteria. More often than not, people’s judgment is based on sentiments and perceptions.
To be fair to the public, they normally set a very high standard of morality and integrity for those who hold any public office.
If politicians, for instance, are not ready to adhere to those high standards, the rule is simple: they should never join politics from day one!
Are the verdicts of the court of public opinion always erroneous?
Truth be told, they are not.
Guilty as charged
In the SRC trial involving Najib Abdul Razak, for instance, it was proven that the guilty verdict by the court of public opinion was subsequently vindicated by a unanimous judgment given by nine judges.
Despite being found guilty by the court of public opinion and the court of law, some Umno members, however, still believe that he is innocent.
In recent media reports, Felda Kota Gelanggi Umno passed a resolution urging supporters to keep defending Najib and yearn for his return.
In the eyes of the majority, whenever some politicians face any criminal charges - particularly corruption indictments - they must be guilty. Period.
As far as the public is concerned, there is only one verdict for some politicians - guilty as charged!
Yes, it sounds weird. Nonetheless, that is how the court of public opinion operates. Some people call such a brand of justice swift justice.
The verdict of the court of public opinion could be extremely harsh and even oppressive sometimes, but you ignore it at your own peril. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy law minister.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT,

---