Foreword, prelude, disclaimer, pre-clarification, setting the context or whatever
This blog was motivated by the recent developments around the Salman case hit and run case. Truth be told, the seeds of this post and many more that is sure to follow in future were sown when the collective mind of the nation was gripped by the Kasab trial.
At present, this blog will read like notes jotted on the back of an envelope. And it is so. This is thought-in-progress. The thought - and the blog - are developing. So, until then. Read on. And comment. Thanks.
The post (draft no. 1)
I remember a line from Kevin Costner starrer: Robin Hood: Prince of thieves - "what do you do when the only way to uphold justice is to break the law"? The Indian legal system was created by the British and needless to say it was designed as a maze of statements to manipulate the situation and confuse the layman primarily to prevent justice from being delivered. Understandably it suited the British. But wily Indian politicians will not allow the system to change because it is a powerful tool that helps them get away with murder. What we need is justice and not law. And we dont need the police, lawyer or a judge to deliver justice. I am not talking about "kanoon ko apne haath mein lena". I believe in the power, supremacy and purity of human conscience. I believe that a guilty conscience is more effective than all the laws of the world put together. I believe criminals are not afraid of justice, they are afraid of laws. Criminals plead 'not-guilty' not because they are bad people. But they do so because they too dont trust the logic of law. Just for the sake of discussion - what did we achieve by hanging Kasab? Will that stop a jihadist who is anyway brain-washed to give up his life? On the contrary would justice have been delivered if Kasab was asked to take care of the elderly parents of a young man he killed? Coming to Salman's case, what do we achieve by meting out irrelevant punishments like imprisonment? Will that solve drunken driving amongst us? Question is, can laws do anything at all in matters that reside in the realm of the human conscience? Let us ask ourselves this - 'do we speak the truth because there is a law? Will we start lying if there is a law that prohibits speaking the truth? Or do we do so because our conscience says so?'
Addendum 1
What is a 'good' punishment? I recently attended a talk on 'environmental laws' delivered by an official of the 'Pollution Control Board'. When he was talking about punitive measures/ penalties I couldn't help wondering how monetary fines and imprisonment would help clean up the mess that the violator had made. For an erring business/ businessman, nothing would hurt more than a dent in its/his/her finances. So, at best the fine and imprisonment could be relevant deterrents. But after a violation has been made, what about the polluted water/ air/ land?
Therefore what should be the objective of punishment? Is it to simply give back a tit for a tat? Sort of an eye for an eye? Is punishment just a legal way of payback? Or can punishment be something else? Something other than a different way of hurting? Should punishment be something else?
Punishments have always been (and still are) designed to be a preventive deterrent (almost always), a predictive deterrent (sometimes) and corrective deterrent (rarely).
This blog was motivated by the recent developments around the Salman case hit and run case. Truth be told, the seeds of this post and many more that is sure to follow in future were sown when the collective mind of the nation was gripped by the Kasab trial.
At present, this blog will read like notes jotted on the back of an envelope. And it is so. This is thought-in-progress. The thought - and the blog - are developing. So, until then. Read on. And comment. Thanks.
The post (draft no. 1)
I remember a line from Kevin Costner starrer: Robin Hood: Prince of thieves - "what do you do when the only way to uphold justice is to break the law"? The Indian legal system was created by the British and needless to say it was designed as a maze of statements to manipulate the situation and confuse the layman primarily to prevent justice from being delivered. Understandably it suited the British. But wily Indian politicians will not allow the system to change because it is a powerful tool that helps them get away with murder. What we need is justice and not law. And we dont need the police, lawyer or a judge to deliver justice. I am not talking about "kanoon ko apne haath mein lena". I believe in the power, supremacy and purity of human conscience. I believe that a guilty conscience is more effective than all the laws of the world put together. I believe criminals are not afraid of justice, they are afraid of laws. Criminals plead 'not-guilty' not because they are bad people. But they do so because they too dont trust the logic of law. Just for the sake of discussion - what did we achieve by hanging Kasab? Will that stop a jihadist who is anyway brain-washed to give up his life? On the contrary would justice have been delivered if Kasab was asked to take care of the elderly parents of a young man he killed? Coming to Salman's case, what do we achieve by meting out irrelevant punishments like imprisonment? Will that solve drunken driving amongst us? Question is, can laws do anything at all in matters that reside in the realm of the human conscience? Let us ask ourselves this - 'do we speak the truth because there is a law? Will we start lying if there is a law that prohibits speaking the truth? Or do we do so because our conscience says so?'
Addendum 1
What is a 'good' punishment? I recently attended a talk on 'environmental laws' delivered by an official of the 'Pollution Control Board'. When he was talking about punitive measures/ penalties I couldn't help wondering how monetary fines and imprisonment would help clean up the mess that the violator had made. For an erring business/ businessman, nothing would hurt more than a dent in its/his/her finances. So, at best the fine and imprisonment could be relevant deterrents. But after a violation has been made, what about the polluted water/ air/ land?
Therefore what should be the objective of punishment? Is it to simply give back a tit for a tat? Sort of an eye for an eye? Is punishment just a legal way of payback? Or can punishment be something else? Something other than a different way of hurting? Should punishment be something else?
Punishments have always been (and still are) designed to be a preventive deterrent (almost always), a predictive deterrent (sometimes) and corrective deterrent (rarely).
