[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by carboy

Successful insanity defenses may not end up sending the person to a mental hospital for life.
You are missing the point - mine and manolins.

This is why I asked if we have any system in place to track and monitor the movements of such offenders. The objective is to avoid a repeat of a crime. Which is why I said I dont care where they are. As long as they are tracked and monitored of course.
I am expressing concern over civilians and risk to their life and property from offenders who are released after their sentences (whether short or not is another topic for another day). What you (and perhaps manolin) are focussing about is the said offender and ways to reform him. I dont see anything in your statements that talks of how the society and general public could be saved or protected from the risk of having such people around, possibly on the prowl or probably on the amend (considering the hope and belief in general goodness of mankind)

Edit: It could be either, but people whose track record shows violence in the past need to be tracked for safety reasons.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

What you (and perhaps manolin) are focussing about is the said offender and ways to reform him.

I have not said anything about said offender in any reply to you. I am saying this for the last time - I am not even talking about the said offense.

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by carboy

I have not said anything about said offender in any reply to you. I am saying this for the last time - I am not even talking about the said offense.

Ok, I correct myself. You are focussing on a general offender (not the said specific one) and how to correct him/ her/ it.
You havent said anything about the public or how they should be protected from this kind. Is this correct?

[neoonwheels]

Our justice system is tedious to understand and might have been made to make sure politicians/powerful goons get a loophole to come out clean.

A person with 17 years and 11 months is a minor and suddenly on his 18th BDay he becomes all mature and an adult. For minor crimes, I can understand the Juvenile law and all but crime of such an extent should have been treated differently. His deeds were so shameful that only execution would serve better for such type of behavior.

On top of that the Juvenile court rejected the bone density or something test. *** ! They could have made an exception at least for the medical test. Long live pathetic Indian justice system ! The day is not so far when people would bring such B* to justice on their own terms.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Ok, I correct myself. You are focussing on a general offender (not the said specific one) and how to correct him/ her/ it.

I haven't said anything about correcting him/her, though manolin has. Is it really that to go and actually read my posts at least once before making a series of replies to it?

Originally Posted by selfdrive

You havent said anything about the public or how they should be protected from this kind. Is this correct?

Yes, I haven't said anything about the public or how they should be protected.

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by carboy

I haven't said anything about correcting him/her, though manolin has. Is it really difficult to go and actually read my posts before making a series of replies to it?

Your post above says that I missed the point made by manolin that you restated/ articulated for better understanding. I am responding to his post about reforming the offender.
As far as I see in your previous posts, you are stating things as they are. The very reason I replied to your posts is you are asking for pausing to think than asking for harsher laws. What I am asking is to keep these offenders tracked at all times.
There is no reason to assume I would reply to a post that I have not read.

Originally Posted by carboy

Yes, I haven't said anything about the public or how they should be protected.

You are not talking about the offender or the victim or the public. What you state here is the law. I am talking about reducing risk from any offenders to general public in the future. which should be covered by law.

Edit: Perhaps the mods may want to merge the last few posts as we dont seem to come to a conclusion. While this topic is quite significant and its interesting to hear your opinion, this will be my last post for this topic for today at least! Perhaps we can meet to discuss further over a cup of tea. Which will have to be a pretty big cup

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by manolin

People change. That is the purpose of juvenile system. Anyone young, can learn better. Of course one could argue that the age limit is fixed at 18, which is too late and all that - but for the purpose of law, one has to choose an age limit - 16 or 18 is debatable.

I am ambivalent about the minor getting off - I actually believe that people can change - our juvenile homes (the Indian ones) may be the wrong place for such reformation - but hopefully he has the good sense to do good unto others, which will never make up for what he did - but which might just decrease the amount of bad karma in the world (on a going forward basis).

The others were older, so should have had better sense/knowledge/awareness/responsibility, so let them serve out their sentence/punishment (they can be, under present laws, sentenced to death also.)

I have a hypothetical question for you. What should have been done if Kasab was, lets say, a 17 year old juvenile? Should he have been garlanded on his 18th birthday and let off in the hope he would be reformed??

If that is the state policy here in India then all our friendly neighbor has to do is to give guns to 17 yr olds and send them here to do whatever they like. All they will get is a few days in a juvenile home and thats it! Who cares for the victims by the way! Its not like the common man has any importance in India.

Its totally frivolous this guy will walk off in months. Its a scandal actually. Its an open invitation to all 17 year olds to do whatever they like! The state is not going to punish them! I am surprised many 17 year olds do not realise how much power they have in their hands. They can go and blast the parliament and still nothing will happen to them.

[sa_kiran]

Originally Posted by joslicx

I have a hypothetical question for you. What should have been done if Kasab was, lets say, a 17 year old juvenile? Should he have been garlanded on his 18th birthday and let off in the hope he would be reformed??

Ha ha ha. If you recollect what happened during the trial, this DID HAPPEN. The defense lawyer made this atrocious claim. Had this case not got as much publicity, Kasab would have walked away and come back as an adult, may be through Wagah border pass!

People have been defending the current judicial system with the excuse that any change will be misused by govt/police. They are very happy with criminals misusing the system! It is possible to have checks and balances for police/govt, but not possible with criminals. So, let the law be in favor of police/govt.

[manolin]

Originally Posted by sa_kiran

Ha ha ha.



So, let the law be in favor of police/govt.

The sorry part is that everyone seems to have forgotten what happened in Emergency when the law was in favour of police/govt. I was not born then, but I would very much like this state to continue that those situations brought back - where the govt. has power to decide to castrate people - where the govt. has blind power to raze private houses. No thank you very much.

Originally Posted by joslicx

I have a hypothetical question for you. What should have been done if Kasab was, lets say, a 17 year old juvenile? Should he have been garlanded on his 18th birthday and let off in the hope he would be reformed??

If that is the state policy here in India then all our friendly neighbor has to do is to give guns to 17 yr olds and send them here to do whatever they like. All they will get is a few days in a juvenile home and thats it! Who cares for the victims by the way! Its not like the common man has any importance in India.

Its totally frivolous this guy will walk off in months. Its a scandal actually. Its an open invitation to all 17 year olds to do whatever they like! The state is not going to punish them! I am surprised many 17 year olds do not realise how much power they have in their hands. They can go and blast the parliament and still nothing will happen to them.

So then petition the MPs to change the juvenile laws to apply at 16 - or wait, what if 16 year olds start coming with guns? In Africa (Congo-Rwanda) 12 year olds run around with guns. Where will you stop? Should the juvenile system be discarded ? - are you suggesting that a 12 year old who has a gun, is the epitome of what that kid will be when he is 35.

The view has to be balanced, the age limit has to be decided on reason, the system has to be thought about and then framed - not a knee jerk reaction to a crime. This is just one crime - 10000 more injustices can be caused when a law like this is made.

[deathwalkr]

Maybe the age factor should be considered upon the severity and nature of the crime committed by a juvenile.

for {insert list of crimes} age should not be a factor and for lesser crimes juveniles may be treated as per juvenile law.

Would that be of help?

[sa_kiran]

Originally Posted by manolin

The sorry part is that everyone seems to have forgotten what happened in Emergency when the law was in favour of police/govt.

What a justification - using emergency excuse! It happened because a leader became dictatorial. The same lame argument can be used against all juvenile offenders. Whether you (and the judiciary) agree or not, this is an exceptional and rarest or rare crime.

Also, why do you want to link trying this particular beast as a adult to gun control? THIS IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. Laws should be based on common sense and help citizens, not idiotic giving loopholes for criminals to exploit.

[mempheS.D]

As Javed Akhtar put it, "If he is old enough to commit a crime as rape, he cannot be considered juvenile". Simple as that.

How much more common sense needs to be drilled into the heads of authorities to release a verdict like that.

A smart government should be able to fake circumstances and take appropriate action so that neither the law is violated nor are the people disappointed. Hey - that's how ENCOUNTER killings got popular. And tell me that wasn't a good idea! HUH.

Then of course, we ll have some human rights monkeys screaming aloud. Nah! Just pay them a deaf ear. If a country can just live with the saying, "The Show must go on..." despite the extremity of the atrocities committed against mankind, all I can say is we are just getting better at ADJUSTING!! Sick Sick Sick.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by manolin

The sorry part is that everyone seems to have forgotten what happened in Emergency when the law was in favour of police/govt. I was not born then, but I would very much like this state to continue that those situations brought back - where the govt. has power to decide to castrate people - where the govt. has blind power to raze private houses. No thank you very much.



So then petition the MPs to change the juvenile laws to apply at 16 - or wait, what if 16 year olds start coming with guns? In Africa (Congo-Rwanda) 12 year olds run around with guns. Where will you stop? Should the juvenile system be discarded ? - are you suggesting that a 12 year old who has a gun, is the epitome of what that kid will be when he is 35.

The view has to be balanced, the age limit has to be decided on reason, the system has to be thought about and then framed - not a knee jerk reaction to a crime. This is just one crime - 10000 more injustices can be caused when a law like this is made.

OK so if the law and order machinary has no meaning then lets just do away with it. Why think only this guy can reform and the others cant? Why cant the other 5 guys in this case be given a chance to reform? After all, we should believe in goodness of "man"kind isint it ? So lets do away with all police and justice system. thats a waste of our money only. If theres a crime lets just assume that good sense in the criminal will eventually prevail, he/she will reform and do good deeds later in life. The other 5 gentlemen in this case should also get that chance then.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by manolin

So then petition the MPs to change the juvenile laws to apply at 16 - or wait, what if 16 year olds start coming with guns? In Africa (Congo-Rwanda) 12 year olds run around with guns. Where will you stop? Should the juvenile system be discarded ? - are you suggesting that a 12 year old who has a gun, is the epitome of what that kid will be when he is 35.

The view has to be balanced, the age limit has to be decided on reason, the system has to be thought about and then framed - not a knee jerk reaction to a crime. This is just one crime - 10000 more injustices can be caused when a law like this is made.

Look, the issue here is not the age limit but the gravity of the crime and no-one should be let off almost scott-free of such grievous crime just because of his age. What people are trying to say here is that if a person of age 17.5 (or say 15/16 or any such age) commits such a heinous crime then he shouldn't be let off because of the loop-hole in the law. He should be punished the similar way that a 18 year would've been punished. It's not about the age but about the seriousness of the crime committed. And that's what people are trying to convey here. Hope the point is a bit clear now.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

Maybe the age factor should be considered upon the severity and nature of the crime committed by a juvenile.

for {insert list of crimes} age should not be a factor and for lesser crimes juveniles may be treated as per juvenile law.

Who do you think would be the best person to decide these list of crimes?

Should it be Barkha Dutt or Vir Singhvi or Arnab Goswami? Or may be we can put them all together in a room to work up the list.

Or may be we should put that stupid woman's rights group person who wanted to change the law so that in rape cases, proof should not be required for conviction and the woman's word should be good enough.

Should this list be static or should we add new crimes to it as and when the TV channels feel that a particular crime should be added.

I think the best thing would be to just get rid of courts and let the TV channels do all the judicial work. We have our own Judge Judy - Rajat Sharma with Janta ki Adalat. With more than 100 channels, and each channel running one such program each day, all important cases would also be fast tracked. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied they say. We can also all the common people - many of who seem to offer very creative opinions on these judicial matters - also vote in these programs. The whole country vote by SMS on any case they are interested in - SMS A for Not Guilty, SMS B <N> for N years in jail, SMS C for Hanging, SMS D for Chemical Castration.

That will be true democracy in action.