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.