Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Crime and Punishment
Situation 1:
Suppose, you did an act of crime in anger and frustration. Although, initially you did not know what to do, you are ready to apologize and go any far to prove that you did not pre-meditate the crime. But, you are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
I have been following Cody Posey's trial for three weeks. He is an abused child who snapped and killed his father, step mother and step sister after years of physical and mental abuse. The jury found him guilty on all three counts.
But, surprisingly, if you read reviews or heard people talking about it, none of them could agree on the verdict. Everyone felt that he should be allowed to walk out of the court free after counselling. The number of votes that saw his innocence was far more than the number that found him guilty despite his acceptance of offense.
Alternatively,
Situation 2:
You have committed a crime and people came to know about it, in spite of your best effort to avoid the evidence. Initially, when people begin to get a smell of it, you try to hush it up. But this is an age of hi-tech gadgetary systems. When you see no escape, you dub the reports baseless, the nefarious design of your opponents. You hire the country's best attorneys and win the case in your favor.
I followed Michael Jackson's case closely and again, felt differently than the jury and so did thousand others. The votes that came in favor of this thought outnumbered the votes that held him innocent.
In both these situations you lose your calmness of mind because you have indeed committed an act that you are now trying to suppress or tend to rationalize. Whether or not people learn about your unlawful act and whether or not it is proved are peripheral issues. The fact that your committing the crime and not acknowledging it itself puts you on the wrong track. Your continued preoccupation with it atthe neglect of good experience of life, is a punishment in itself.
When debating the issue with my friends, one of my friends quoted Joaquin Miller,
"In men whom men condemn as ill, I find so much goodness still.
In men whom men pronounce divine, I find so much sin and blot,
I do not dare to draw a line between the two, where God has not."
There ended the debate, both among my friends and within my head.
Suppose, you did an act of crime in anger and frustration. Although, initially you did not know what to do, you are ready to apologize and go any far to prove that you did not pre-meditate the crime. But, you are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
I have been following Cody Posey's trial for three weeks. He is an abused child who snapped and killed his father, step mother and step sister after years of physical and mental abuse. The jury found him guilty on all three counts.
But, surprisingly, if you read reviews or heard people talking about it, none of them could agree on the verdict. Everyone felt that he should be allowed to walk out of the court free after counselling. The number of votes that saw his innocence was far more than the number that found him guilty despite his acceptance of offense.
Alternatively,
Situation 2:
You have committed a crime and people came to know about it, in spite of your best effort to avoid the evidence. Initially, when people begin to get a smell of it, you try to hush it up. But this is an age of hi-tech gadgetary systems. When you see no escape, you dub the reports baseless, the nefarious design of your opponents. You hire the country's best attorneys and win the case in your favor.
I followed Michael Jackson's case closely and again, felt differently than the jury and so did thousand others. The votes that came in favor of this thought outnumbered the votes that held him innocent.
In both these situations you lose your calmness of mind because you have indeed committed an act that you are now trying to suppress or tend to rationalize. Whether or not people learn about your unlawful act and whether or not it is proved are peripheral issues. The fact that your committing the crime and not acknowledging it itself puts you on the wrong track. Your continued preoccupation with it atthe neglect of good experience of life, is a punishment in itself.
When debating the issue with my friends, one of my friends quoted Joaquin Miller,
"In men whom men condemn as ill, I find so much goodness still.
In men whom men pronounce divine, I find so much sin and blot,
I do not dare to draw a line between the two, where God has not."
There ended the debate, both among my friends and within my head.
Comments:
<< Home
also wanted to make this point.
in case 1 - you agree with the court that the guy indeed did kill. what you are trying to say that there were mitigatory circumstances. and such circumstances should be factored into the decision. but the court had the facts right.
in the second case what you are saying is that court was wrong. this is a contradiction to your logic in the first case. you have superimposed your initial opinion (obviously u have not seen him have sex with a kid) on the court decision. What is the basis of that opinion? Media reports? is that credible? if MJ had not committed pedophilia then the best way for him to prove it is in court.
in case 1 - you agree with the court that the guy indeed did kill. what you are trying to say that there were mitigatory circumstances. and such circumstances should be factored into the decision. but the court had the facts right.
in the second case what you are saying is that court was wrong. this is a contradiction to your logic in the first case. you have superimposed your initial opinion (obviously u have not seen him have sex with a kid) on the court decision. What is the basis of that opinion? Media reports? is that credible? if MJ had not committed pedophilia then the best way for him to prove it is in court.
Hawkeye,
It's not abt whether the court is right or wrong. It's abt what goes into the head of jurors...Jury, as law defines, is the voice of people. When the common voice of people is against the decision of the jury, irrespective of its accuracy, it makes me wonder if its purpose is met.
but i agree with your last statement, and thanks for stopping by and making a point:)
Post a Comment
It's not abt whether the court is right or wrong. It's abt what goes into the head of jurors...Jury, as law defines, is the voice of people. When the common voice of people is against the decision of the jury, irrespective of its accuracy, it makes me wonder if its purpose is met.
but i agree with your last statement, and thanks for stopping by and making a point:)
<< Home
