The Distinction Between Justice and Revenge

Yesterday, a verdict was handed down in the Air India trial, bringing to a close one of the longest trials and investigations in Canadian history. After 19 months of testimony, the judge found the defendants not guilty.

Of course, the victims families are unhappy, for the very human need to see "something done" to the perpetrators of the Air India bombing remains for them. That's human, and understandable. But justice is seldom about being human and understandable - it's about law, which at best can be humane.

Stephen Harper has been quoted as follows on the subject, putting his voice to calls for a public inquiry into why the investigation and trial failed to achieve a conviction:

"If we do not have a successful prosecution in the end, I believe it is essential we have a public inquiry."

"I'm not in a position to hand down a verdict … I can't challenge the verdict. I can simply say because of more than 300 dead Canadians, justice has not been done."

Actually, I must disagree with Mr. Harper on both assertions. First of all, it is not a prerequisite that the prosecution's case be upheld by the courts in order for justice to have been done. A case in point would be the David Milgaard case. For a variety of reasons, Milgaard was successfully prosecuted even though he was - as we have recently determined - innocent of the crimes he was accused of. In fact, his original conviction was clearly a serious miscarriage of justice - a failure to do justice.

Second, in reviewing the verdict documents themselves from the Air India case, it seems quite clear that the judge found the Crown's case lacking credibility. The witnesses on the stand were for a variety of reasons less than believable in the judge's view. It seems quite clear to me that the judge felt that a conviction under such circumstances could potentially be a serious miscarriage of justice. With little evidence to corroborate the stories of the various witnesses (most of whom seemed to know about the situation "second-hand"), and witnesses whose stories have mutated over the intervening years, I can understand the judge's reluctance to issue a conviction.

Was justice done? Yes, it was. The judge did not claim that the accused did not commit the acts that they were accused of. He simply asserted that the Crown failed to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused had _IN_FACT_ committed those acts. A statement of that nature is pretty clear to me - the very safeguards that are intended to protect our rights and liberties as citizens of a free country triggered and have protected the accused from spending further time in prison with respect to acts that they may not have in fact committed.

Do we need a "public inquiry" to figure out what happened to cause such a huge, and expensive investigation to not achieve the desired results? (Namely to capture and punish those responsible for Air India) No, we do not. In the 20 years that have elapsed since that fateful day, much has changed and a public airing of 20 year old laundry from CSIS and the RCMP is hardly going to tell us anything we don't already know.

Mr. Harper, and those who cry for blood as a result of the acquittal need to step back and think carefully about their own liberties and rights as citizens of this land. Further, the notion of justice as opposed to revenge needs to be thought about carefully. Justice is not revenge. Sometimes, justice is served by punishment; other times, it is served by acquittal. Cases like the Milgaard situation make it clear that errors can and do occur in the judicial system. It is good to know in this case that if there are errors, that two men are not rotting in a jail cell as a result of those errors.