Pubdate: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) Copyright: 2006 The Ottawa Citizen Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326 Note: The judgment is on line at http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc47/2006scc47.html Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmjcn.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal - Canada) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/grant.htm (Krieger, Grant) THE JURY IS IN The case of Grant Krieger, the medical-marijuana activist, reminds us why it's still essential to have trials by jury. If the purpose of a trial were merely to apply the law to a particular case, there would be no need for a jury. Judges are trained to know the law and interpret it. They are better qualified than anyone to decide whether a citizen violated the law. But that's not all a trial is supposed to do. A trial is not only the judgment of the law; it's the judgment of society on one of its members. The law is the measuring-stick, but it's in our hands. When a panel of citizens cannot in good conscience apply the law, that's almost always a sign that there's something wrong. The law is flawed, incomplete, or out of step with society. In effect, the jury trial is the last line of defence against bad laws. When the consciences of ordinary people revolt, it's time for lawmakers to re-examine their work. Grant Krieger is not a thief or a murderer or a rapist. No doubt, some Canadians believe he's misguided, even dangerous. But even they would have a hard time proving that his intentions are bad. The Alberta man is legally allowed to possess and grow marijuana for medical reasons. The law does not allow him to provide it to other people, even those in medical need. Yet he has admitted doing that. He was charged seven years ago with unlawfully producing marijuana, and eventually convicted. After a series of appeals, the Supreme Court said on Thursday that he deserves a new trial. The court's reasoning is clear and simple. It's based on the fact that the trial judge, in clear language, told the jury to convict. Two jurors asked to be excused; one said: "I feel this man is not a guilty man." The judge denied their request. The jury did as it was told and convicted Mr. Krieger. The Supreme Court wrote that "the trial judge reduced the jury's role to a ceremonial one." Mr. Krieger has the right to a trial by jury. Judges can instruct juries, but they can't remove the option of acquittal. None of this is to say that a random group of citizens gets to throw out laws on whim. The rule of law is not to be taken lightly. Sometimes, laws that run counter to intuition can still be right and just. Juries should never ignore the law or judges' instructions. But the whole purpose of a jury trial is to acknowledge the human element in the justice system. When a jury does use its prerogative to acquit based on conscience, lawmakers should take that as an instruction to examine the law, and to improve it if necessary. Canada's rules regarding the medical use of marijuana are imperfect, to say the least. Many people with chronic illnesses say the current system does not work for them. Mr. Krieger will get the chance to lay his case before a new jury. That jury might decide on its own that he is guilty, or it might not. No matter the outcome of his case, the federal government should listen to what Mr. Krieger has to say. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake