TWO different paths towards justice strike very different notes in today’s Tribune.

First of all, there is a discussion about the nature – and future – of jury trials.

The matter arose from a law lecture event last week, at which some of the challenges of jury trials were raised.

This has been discussed before – many times – with Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis recently complaining about people’s unwillingness to become jurors.

That was amplified during the discussion on Thursday at Baha Mar, with it being described as “like pulling teeth” to get jurors to sit for a case.

Of course, a trial by jury is a fundamental – and a constitutional – right. If any one of us is called to face a court, it is our right under the constitution to be tried by a jury of our peers, and not just by a judge.

That is important for many reasons – and also an important check to ensure that every one of us is ultimately treated the same before a court of law. No matter how influential the person, they can be held to account by a panel of ordinary Bahamians, who weigh the evidence before them.

Are there complex cases that can be difficult for juries to weigh? Absolutely. Some of those can be challenging for some judges to weigh too.

It could be a matter of concern too – suppose a sitting government MP or minister of an administration is called before a court and elects to be tried by judges rather than a jury only to be cleared, will the public be confident the verdict was reached without influence?

There is significant energy being directed to the discussion though – which brings us to the second story today.

Last month, a man had his armed robbery case thrown out after his confession was not accepted by the judge, who said the prosecution had not proven it was obtained willingly and not under duress.

The confession was the only evidence, and the prosecution dropped the case.

The man in the case, Javis Smith, claimed that in 2018 when he was arrested, police beat him with a cutlass on his buttocks, put a fish bag over his head, and poured hot sauce in his eyes until he confessed.

The National Security Minister, Wayne Munroe, in response to that says that the man is “free to make a complaint”.

Contrasting discussions about possible constitutional changes with the lack of energy to pursue allegations of beating and torture by police is striking.

Should the man make a complaint, six years on from the event, what action will be taken?

It should be noted that when three people made allegations of being tortured by police in Eleuthera – with strikingly similar methods of being beaten, a fish bag put over their heads and hot sauce poured into their eyes, along with being waterboarded – the police let time run out on the complaint.

A full year passed after their complaint, and the police ultimately told the they had run out of time for their complaint to be dealt with.

The police force should be pro-active in dealing with allegations of beating and torture. These are, after all, crimes themselves, and a force intent on keeping its good name should be as keen to investigate these alleged crimes as any others.

Is there a path toward justice for people in such cases? Or is the only change on the table the prospect of removing even a jury trial in their future?

As it happens, the politicising of referendums in our country that has seen successive votes fail at the polls may well be the death knell for any such vote to change the constitution on jury trials, the attorney general saying he does not foresee such an issue going to the voters.

But if we do take steps down the path, they should be cautious ones, with the goal of preserving people’s rights as high on the agenda as any prospect of increased efficiency.