Three particular judges are being reliably mentioned as possible chief justice candidates: Consuelo Scerri Herrera, Edwina Grima and Wenzu Mintoff.

All three would be a fine and apt choice for occupying such a high and important constitutional position, with their credentials of proven legal knowledge, intelligence and a fine sense of justice. Moreover, if, as is being highly rumoured, the next chief justice will be a female judge, it will be another first in Malta's judicial history.

If such a development comes about, it will be a significant landmark and transformative event in our nation's history, symbolising a shift towards gender equality within a historically male-dominated, patriarchal legal system. The significance would go beyond symbolic representation, offering tangible changes to judicial proceedings, legal philosophy, and public trust in a bulwark institution.

While equality in our judiciary has been historically uneven, steps are being taken to remedy this, and the appointment of a first female chief justice would be another milestone towards parity.

Besides ensuring that our legal system is developed with all of society in mind and that, in turn, a representative perspective is brought to adjudication, the inspiration it would provide to the next generation of female judges gives them continued motivation to achieve their goals.

It would go on to demonstrate that women are equally capable of holding top leadership roles and constitute a progressive step towards parity.

                                                          Scope of punishment

The principle that "the punishment must fit the crime" is a fundamental concept in criminal justice, originating with Cicero in 106 BCE, that requires punishment to be proportional to the severity of the offence.

This concept remains a core principle of criminal justice to this day. Some even see traces of it in our constitution and criminal code. Bail, fines, and punishments must be reasonable.

But why should the punishment fit the crime? Should we ask how punishment fits the criminal instead of the crime?

Some argue that all forms of punishment are cruel and that criminal behaviour should be treated, rather than punished, in much the same way that behavioural disorders and mental illness are treated.

Take capital punishment, for example, which, fortunately, is not applicable anymore today. They argue that it is morally wrong. It has a negative effect on everyone, especially those involved in it. It gives a false sense of security to the public. It is vastly expensive. Worst of all, it clouds the entire issue of motivation in crime, which is so importantly relevant to the question of what to do for and with the criminal that will be most constructive to society as a whole. Punishing, and even killing, criminals may yield a kind of grim gratification, but playing God in this way has no conceivable moral or scientific justification.

While reducing reoffending is an important aim with potentially immense benefits, an effective sentence must also serve to communicate to society that justice has been done, that wrongdoing has been censured and denounced, and that, ultimately, offenders have been held accountable.

At best, punishment and proportionality are like grading papers: we can achieve rough approximation, but not absolute certainty.

                                             Life without parole

As of September 14, 2025, 19 people are serving life imprisonment in Malta.

Not long ago, one particular concern and recommendation expressed by the Council of Europe's Anti-torture Committee (CPT) after its periodic visit to Malta was that those who are sentenced to life imprisonment by the Maltese Court should be allowed the possibility of applying for parole after a certain part of their sentence has elapsed, something which under current Maltese law is not allowed.

For the benefit of all those who do not come from the legal profession, it is worthwhile to put some aspects in their proper perspective.

First of all, parole is not a right but a privilege or a discretionary grant by the government or parole board. Parole is granted based on an assessment of factors like the prisoner's behaviour in prison, risk of reoffending, and plans for reintegration into society, and can be denied even if the prisoner meets eligibility criteria.

Secondly, the impossibility to apply for parole under our law for guilty persons sentenced to life imprisonment with no minimum term being specified by the court has, of necessity, to be evaluated in light of our criminal justice system being one of retribution, correction, reformation and restoration at the same time.

The central point of life sentences is the idea that making punishments more severe will reduce criminal behaviour. In Malta, there is a growing tendency to support increasingly harsh punishments to deter others from serious and often horrific crime.

Most people who have served sufficient sentences can succeed on release, but some will reoffend.

States are given the liberty to impose criminal measures as they deem fit when a particular crime has been committed, with the greater the severity of the crime, the greater the criminal measure imposed.

I can understand that striking a balance between the goals of a crime-free society and respect for human rights is crucial, and this is precisely where our judiciary comes in, as, at the end of the day, it is up to them to determine, according to the circumstances of the case, whether anyone convicted of a particularly brutal, cruel, sadistic and premeditated crime that deprives someone of his or her right to life should be eventually considered for parole.

Dr. Mark Said