As a big fan of Forensics (my all time favourite TV show is Forensic Files) I am really excited and glad to know that Bhutan is finally getting its own Forensic lab. I think this will have a great impact on the justice and legal system and hopefully enable our courts to make better and more informed decisions regarding criminal cases. A strong and effective justice system is paramount for a successful and smooth functioning Democracy.
In the past, a lack of these specialized services left many crimes unresolved and many innocent people incarcerated. As the BO story says, cases languished in court because all DNA and forensic tests had to be sent all the way to India. Our courts relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and testimonies to solve cases because forensic evidence/testing was virtually non-existent.
Even in a country like the U.S, where Forensic Science has made leaps and bounds and helped solve cases in fascinating ways, people are still being exonerated by DNA tests after 20/30 years of having been imprisoned on circumstantial evidence and false testimonies. So, even though it is comforting to know that we have, at least, made a start, we too will have a long way to go.
We, therefore, cannot expect that DNA and Forensics will overhaul or take care of our entire justice system. It will certainly help improve outcomes but if the framework of the courts and how our cases are handled is not improved, then forensics will have little impact on justice.
I say this because personal legal representation (assigning a lawyer) to someone accused or charged with a crime is still not the norm in court proceedings in Bhutan. Either it is not permitted, or it is not mandatory but people charged with a crime are in most, if not all, cases still representing themselves. This does not make for a fair trial especially for illiterates, peasants and people with no understanding of the law (which would then include most of us, for although we are educated we often do not know much about penal codes or the laws, forget the court proceedings)
As I have written before, jaabmis (foot lawyers) were done away with in Bhutan because (this told to me by a High Court official) they often prolonged cases by taking on too many, or simply trying to drag their foot to prevent a verdict. This caused a huge backlog in cases at the Courts and prevented anything from moving. The other reason was that jaabmis were self taught and not professionally trained and didn't know much about the law themselves.
But if that is the only excuse for not allowing legal representation, I think that it is high time the High Court did something about it by looking into how they can set up time frames, penalizing jaabmis for not following procedures, and putting in place proper procedures to keep the trials moving.
What they can do is:
i) Start licensing the practice and have categories of lawyers/jaabmis to turn it into a professional post. This is also one way to start creating more jobs.
ii) have tests (like a bar) according to our own judicial requirements and according to what kind of law they want to practice so that people who enter the profession at least have a certain understanding of it.
iii)In the near future set up our own training facilities or schools
iv) and last but not least, even have a jury so that the decision/verdict is not left to a single person; the judge.
In every country's history, the profession of lawyers and personal legal representation has always started through foot lawyers or jaabmis, as they are known in Bhutan, and that is why they are self taught.
If it helps to know, a great man like Abraham Lincoln was also a jaabmi before he went on to become the President of America.
(Footnote: A mediocre Criminal, but an Unmatched Jailhouse Lawyer NYtimes.) An inspiring story about a convict turned lawyer.
Comments
Post a Comment