Justice is deemed served only when the victims feel a sense of closure. It is imperative that one understands that while justice may be delivered, by virtue of a sentence or a verdict, it may still remain far from allaying or soothing the angst of the victim(s), if it doesn’t take into consideration their emotions, and merely judges the issue on the basis of cold facts.
The Jessica Lal case, which has rocked
And yet, 7 years is too long for justice to be served. In these years, the parents of Jessica Lal passed away, in wait of their daughter’s murderer’s conviction. Allegations of the most reproachable and reprehensible manner have been leveled against the late Ms. Lal herself, and not much was said or done about the one who made these comments. Evidence was tampered with, and the entire judicial process mocked at. What absolute power can achieve if it wishes to do so is aptly demonstrated by way of the manner in which the convicted tried to subvert the system. That despite all this, justice was delivered is in itself a matter of pride, a matter of great celebration.
The family of Ms. Lal had declined to ask for the death sentence for the convicted, on ideological grounds. So, life imprisonment for them is a just punishment, and perhaps somewhere these beliefs of theirs must have weighed heavily with the court when it took the decision of whether to pronounce the death penalty or life imprisonment.
I am a supporter of the death penalty, and advocate it being used to punish those who commit the most abominable crimes, such as pedophilia, patricide, matricide, and even rape. Homicide involving torture of the victim also ought to qualify, as it isn’t simply an act of passion therein, but a coolly planned crime, aimed at causing the greatest degree of horror.
But in this case, the rarest of rare criterion is inapplicable, simply because this was a crime of passion with no ulterior motive behind it. And I do not find it odd to say that by declining to punish Mr. Sharma by way of the death penalty, the court has judged rightly, and judged solely on the basis of the facts before it, and not on the media outcry and the public sentiments associated with the case. The fears of the defense counsel have been shown to have been unfounded, and one’s faith in the judiciary has been reaffirmed once again, manifold.
1 comment:
Perhaps the collective conscience of the country has been redeemed by this verdict. I join all Indians as they rejoice the functioning of the judiciary in a scenario where all had lost hope, where the rich and powerful were one side and the great Indian middle class values of egalitarianism on the other.
Ofcourse, we are tempted to believe that we have just got a confirmation of the unbiased nature on the Indian legal system. The truth, unfortunately is far from it. The recent cases show that it is only under intense media scrutiny and public pressure have the aggrieved got justice. They display how many Jessicas are buried deep into the endless waits for justice. We must not wait for another moral outrage to reform our justice system. With unprecedented public expectation of accountability from all members of the system including judges, there isn't a better time than now to get ourselves rid of the institutional defects of this system.
Post a Comment