In criminal trials, jurors are instructed that they are the sole judges of the facts and it is their duty, after applying the legal directions given by the learned judge, to find where the truth lies.It is never an easy task and one which must be taken very seriously.Very early in the summing-up, jurors will be reminded that they must arrive at their verdict without fear or favour, and that there must be objective and independent assessment of the evidence.
In their deliberations, there must be no bias or prejudice. The verdict must be based on the evidence that unfolded in the trial and nothing else. There is no room for speculation or any form of persuasion by public perception. The chips must fall as they may.Many judges advise jurors that they must be unemotional in the performance of their function because the determination of where the truth lies, must be based solely on the evidence in the case.
Such strict guidelines have to be slavishly followed in order to ensure that justice is served. Nothing less will suffice.So how should the citizenry deal with the many matters that have been placed in the public domain for which there must be a finding of fact? If citizens were to follow the instructions given to jurors in the courtroom, then maybe we would all be able to find where the truth lies.
Instead, those at the top have mastered the art of using sound bites–in most cases–not original thoughts and getting the gullible masses "to focus on the fluff and not the meaningful stuff."Worse yet, we are encouraged or tempted to express views without being apprised of all relevant material on the issue.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/digital/new-members