By Debbie Olujobi
The recent trial and eventual conviction of Michael Jackson’s physician Dr Conrad Murray has recently brought the American judicial system under a microscope before the whole world. The world saw a slew of evidence and very convincing arguments that led most of us to be fairly sure of the guilt of the not so good doctor.

We watched the lawyers try and sway the jury of compelling arguments and different interpretations of the vast array of evidence that were made available by law enforcement and the coroner’s office. The members of the jury played a very prominent role in the proceedings as it was up to them to weigh the arguments and evidence and come up with a verdict.

For those not in the know, A jury trial (or trial by jury) is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all decisions.

I remember being particularly struck by a phrase; the judge had talked about Conrad Murray being judged by a jury of his peers and I had mulled over that for several days. It caught my interest just as another phrase that has been playing in my immediate environment lately.

The phrase was “the strife of tongues” and for some reason both terms had rolled into one and the same for me. They both carried elements of judgement, either fairly or unfairly and involved condemnation if so determined by opinions formed by persuasion of others.

The song “it’s a small world after all” describes my world view as I live in a reality that probably doesn’t exist outside of my head. I have come to accept that I am made of extremely fragile materials and have given up trying to develop a thick skin to fit into the world.

My solution to exist and live in harmony has been to keep my world extremely small and consciously choose to be happy; malice doesn’t exist in my world because it can’t find a way in. I also suffer from a serious lack of curiosity so I tend not to know anything about anyone unless my opinion is expressly sought.

I was mulling over the above phrases when I concluded that they were pretty much the same but I am more fascinated with the jury of peers. To my understanding peers refer to persons of the same legal status or persons who are equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

The idea of a jury in a trial I believe is to get people who can relate to similar positions to come together and voice their opinions on the guilt or innocence of whoever is on trial. Being a Nigerian I am not likely to ever face a legal jury trial as it is not practised here but I strongly believe most of us have at one time or the other faced a jury of unfriendly peers in the shape of vindictive gossip and venomous malice.

My musings on the phrases have nothing to do with their applications except that I strongly question the title of peer. It is my opinion that no two human beings are the same and one would be hard pressed to come across anyone worthy of judging the other.

I am backed up a friend’s Blackberry message “don’t judge me because you are not in my shoes”. I had agreed with the sentiment and not given it much thought till a few days ago when I came into the knowledge that I had been on the receiving end of some intense strife of nefarious tongues.

I hadn’t been amused initially but I can’t give energy to negativity so I just drew a line and surgically trimmed the institution that bred the strife out of my world. My first instinct had been to lash back and I certainly had a constituency that could do major damage but that would have in my opinion validated the peerage.

It would mean that I agreed that I was amongst a jury of peers; people of equals in belief, creed and status and God forbid I be lumped with darkness.

To be continued