Any eye for an eye

As per latest reports, a certain so called cultural organization will go on a rampage on Valentines Day. They will either forcibly marry off couples or ask them to wear rakhi. Come on!! Are people allowed to make such threats publicly in India? I know the various political implication of taking strong action and how it’s hard to crack down on cultural groups in a country like India. But come on! This is getting out of hand. Any organization with more than 20 members can threaten to create havoc or create havoc and get away with it. Its happening in the congress ruled states as well as the BJP ruled states. After a while it’s really frustrating. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can do anything if he does it in the name of Indian culture.

The problem lies in the fact that as a nation we are not that courageous. I feel that if 50 odd people come and start enforcing their own law, the rest of the citizens should mob up and trash the living day lights out of them. That is the only solution to the problem. Even though doing so is also taking law into ones own hands, what this does is that it will act as a deterrent for people who want to make a name for themselves through hooliganism. I strongly believe that this is the way forward. If 10 “sena’s “come and attack you, 20 of you should gang up and beat them up. Even though this is a highly uncivilized way of going about things, I feel that we are running out of options.

Another thing that I have noticed is that, the media will go all hammer and tongs about leaders committing crimes and let off on bail and allowed to speak to the public freely. The absurdity of their concern is that the same channel, who cries foul about the accused allowed to talk to the media, is the media to which the accused is talking to. Such incidents make you believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. Another thing that I have noticed is that how media gets to all the place well before the police gets there. And if the accused is hiding, the media is able to contact them from an undisclosed location! Is there a tie up between the police and the media? Is there a tie up between the culprits and the media? Are all the 3 parties in it together? Or is it just coincidents? Now I understand why the Americans come up with various conspiracy theories.

What ever may be the truth, I feel that people are getting more and more frustrated. If such incidents are not controlled by the authorities, the unrest will increase and it could turn real nasty

Twisted Justice??

I really do not understand the justice systems prevailing in various countries. The whole judicial system is based on the principle that once an offender has committed a crime, he is send to jail so that when he comes out of his jail term he becomes a better person and can lead a normal life. I am not saying that the concept is right or wrong, but that’s the concept. That’s why people are sent to jail. That is one of the reasons why people are opposing the death penalty. But is the whole system hypocritical?

In the US and in most countries, finger prints, DNA etc of the convicts are stored and if at another crime seen if any trace of a former felon is found, then he/she would automatically be the prime suspect. If some crime happens and if a formal criminal is present in the neighborhood, then regardless of the evidence he/she becomes the prime suspect. In the US all sex offenders are registered. They are not supposed to live anywhere within 1000 yards of schools and other places where children can be found. When they move into a new locality all the neighbors would be notified about him. If the judicial system is do damn sure that if a sex offender comes any where close to a child, its almost certain that he would take advantage of the child, they why release the offender on the first place? To ensure that the police force doesn’t get bored! Aren’t jails and other centers constructed so that they can keep in trouble makers and make it outside world a lot safer?

If that’s the case I find two things wrong with the judicial system. First the judicial system works on the assumption that when a convict is freed, the chance of him committing another crime is very high. Hence I believe that the quantum of punishment and the severeness of punishments should increase. If you vandalize property, you would be given a hefty fine, which for most people is pocket cash. If you rob a bank, you would be send to 3-5 years in jail, which the appropriate time to plot another bank robbery. Unless a punishment acts as a strong deodorant there is no point in having the punishment. The punishment should bring a sense of fear in the minds of people. What people lose by getting caught should outweigh the benefits the person gets out of the crime by a huge margin.

The second problem I see with the judicial system is that even after a person pays his dues to the society, the tag of "criminal" still remains with the person. Like in the case of a sex offender, he has to go through a lot of formalities before he can do something. Many posts require its holders, not to have any criminal record. I can understand people preferring a person with no criminal over some one with a record, but I don’t understand the logic behind disqualifying a person because of his criminal record. That just downplays or overrides the whole purpose of achieving reforms by sending a person to jail. To say that a person is send to jail so that he can rectify his mistakes and then when he comes out he can have a new beginning and then when he comes out take away most of the person’s normal life is quite hypocritical.

I know that changing any system is next to impossible. I am not saying that the judicial system should be changed. I just do not get the whole idea of the various punishments given, the reason for giving punishments, the life of a person after his term ends. People say that after a jail term is over, the person is given a second chance to live. Life becomes very hard for them. In fact the present circumstances encourage former convicts to step into bigger crimes. I am just a confused person trying to make sense of the judicial system