Justice must fit the crime

It is essential at the outset to adopt a broad perspective if the issue of the trial of individuals accused of terrorist offenses committed on October 7, 2023, in Israel is to be viewed objectively.

Unquestionably, the incursion into Israel and the swath of appalling offenses carried out by Hamas militants on October 7, including murder, rape and kidnapping, were deeply and in some instances disgustingly shocking and must command the full weight of legal retribution.

These were acts calculated to terrorize the communities subjected to these savage attacks.

That so many of the victims were women, children and elderly only serves to fuel the fires of redemptive justice.

The Israeli justice minister, Yariv Levin, has stated that his ministry will continue to work to bring the captured terrorists to justice.

But can I be the only lawyer to question Minister Levin’s idea of “justice”?

The concept of justice in a liberal common-law jurisdiction, such as obtains in Israel, necessarily invokes an independent judicial process to determine guilt.

The individual offenses include murder, rape and kidnapping, all common-law and statutory offenses in Israel for which those accused must stand trial.

Under Israeli law, every person on trial has a right to legal representation, and the statutory role of the Israeli Public Defender’s Office is to provide that representation to those who cannot afford private counsel.

However, the PDO has announced that it will not provide legal representation to anyone charged with having committed what, for convenience, I will call an October 7 offense.

The PDO’s justification for this stance is that “in our opinion the procedure against these terrorists is a procedure not suited to judicial procedure