Monday, January 21, 2013

Confused !!

Every time we  read news about somebody taking escape route of "approver'' we  get confused and troubled too!It could be Delhi gang rape offenders or David  Coleman Headley or Rana , we are really confused and troubled. This write up is direct offshoot of this troubled mind.

If you could forgive somebody on some pretext my question is this; Why don"t you forgive everybody?

"Measure for measure" or "Eye for an Eye" has long been replaced by Jesus Christ as "Turn the other cheek".

2012 years have passed! Forgiveness , genuine unconditional forgiveness remains one"s personal morals and ethics only.

But the world operates in the same old way . May be a little diluted or modified version of "eye for an eye'!


This Blog writer has studied the criminal law of India and have fairly good knowledge of the one at U.K.and USA.
Ruling theme of retributive system of justice is that every crime is to be followed by appropriate punishment.

When some one slaps some one slaps back. Both are violent activities.Violence is appropriately responded by violence. Crime . of course, is initial coercion (Immanuel Kant)

Crime is the negation of right
Punishment is the negation of the crime.
Therefore, punishment is the negation of the negation.
The unavoidable conclusions that our administration of justice brings forth is as follows;
Two wrongs make the right
Two wrongs restore the right.
We like it or not . what we  must know is that this is the system of administration of justice followed throughout the world.

What I am confused about?

According to this retributive system of justice (John Rawls) our moral right to punish the offender is based and exclsively grounded on the nature of offence committed and the punishment ought to be proportionate to the offence.Nothing but this is the rule of law governing justice based on retribution.


John Rawls"Theory of "JUST PUNISHMENT" is breached and violated in approver system of delivery of justice.

Now on news are the New Delhi rape suspects who have taken an escape route to dodge punishment.
David Coleman headley who masterminded, planned, conducted reconnaissance and executed Mumbai attacl which killed 166 people who says he did all these with the connivance of ISI Directorate, Lashka, and one ex Major of Pakistan Army escapes death punishment by turning as approver. Rana an accomplice is declared as non accomplice by Jury gets mere 14 years!
Let us analyse why this happens:

We follow a system called Bargain Justice. As per Bargain Justice Prosecutor enters into an agreement with the offender and each party exchanges something of value with the other.

Because offender gives something of value to Prosecutor ,(it could be guilty plea or information on another person"s criminal act") he gets lesser punishment than if he went to trial and got convicted.

We are worried abpout the potential danger in such a bargain justice that offender has a story to tell- the general outline may be true but he puts inside the story many things which are not true.

Here just think of Headley and according to him who are all his collaborators!!

The offender knows that he is "fixed', his guilt is detected and therefore he purchases immunity with every possibility of falsely accusing others!!

My grievances against this inherently defective method of bargain justice are expressed in this Blog.

We are not able to find a way out from this .If you have a suggestion, please! A day should come that the abettor who is an associate in the perpetration of the crime who voluntarily participates in the crime should get the same proportion of the punishment which is "just punishment" as per principles of justice we say that we follow.


  1. Appreciable post!
    This deal is not offered in all cases nor is it a blank check or scot-free deal. The option is turned on when Investigators have reached a dead end or have valuable information to gain which they are otherwise unable to obtain or would take a long time. Severity of the crime and accused's role is taken into consideration in the deal and reducing his/her sentence.

  2. Thanks Inian for the valuable feed back!I am so happy that you have responded!

    My worry centres upon the fact that as per law (SECTION 133 EVIDENCE ACT)statement of the accomplice is legal even if not supported by credible evidence (legal term: Uncorroborated)!

    1. Dear Shekar Mama, this needs to be vetted with professionals. Practice could be better than Theory. How can someone's statement be taken for granted? If there is no evidence, at least it would be verified/validated. The law may not have such a big loophole.

  3. Inian,
    Thanks for the legal question you have raised.

    But there is a correction: It is not" Some one"s statement"
    as you have observed.It is Eyewitness testimony.Perjury being punishable all eyewitness evidences are direct evidences both in theory and in practice.

    1. Dear Inian

      Incidentally I have a interesting thing to tell you ! Contrary to your belief law ha so many major loopholes . Not one.
      If you are keen I will discuss them in my blogs.
      I used to debate them with my lawyer friend who unfortunately got a job as legal adviser at CMC Vellore and left coimbatore.