[joslicx]

Originally Posted by DRIVE_ADDICT

This Lawyer is doing this for publicity and not for anything else.. Oh yeah of course he needs a hand shake as a token of appreciation for his comments like below

"Why don't people first control their daughters? I'd burn my daughter alive if she was having pre-marital sex,roaming around with her boyfriend at night".

Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/feature/why-...h-1305215.html

If that is true than I hope he does not have any children. Nobody deserves such a callous parent.

[download2live]

The "Little one" is still walking away free.
Justice not done. I wanted death for all five. The "Little one" included.

But this is India. Got to console myself with this verdict.

[mannubhai]

AP Singh, Pls ensure that you don't reproduce. If,this is what the lawyer whom people are defending to be "just doing his job" has to say after the verdict . Shame on You.

[invincible7]

I am not sure how we call this justice, its taken painfully a very long period (9 months) to come to this conclusion that all 4 not 5 of the living accused be given death penalty, so justice is not fully granted according to me.

It will take another couple of years to get this actioned by the law as appeals and reappeals will happen, so not sure what is there to celebrate on.

And ofcouse the soo called juvenille gets life even after commiting such a henious crime - not sure what the court was smoking to give this verdict on the day.

A delayed justice is equal to justice denied and lets wait and watch how long will it take to get the action done on the pronounced verdict.

What we really need is faster actions on such crimes and also faster implementation of the pronounced verdict. Ofcourse the juvinelle part needs to be revisited and changed based on the nature of the crime.

[Chetan_Rao]

Not that I think they deserved any mercy, but the lawyer did his bit in getting his clients hanged with his (reportedly) nonsensical arguments.

Invoking Gandhi & Buddha? Really? I doubt either of those men would've approved of shoving an iron rod into someone's private parts. My apologies if someone finds my comment a bit crude.

He would've been better off presenting the socio-economic-cultural background of the accused that turned them into the the monsters they are today, like the article quoted several posts ago. May not be grounds for any leniency or sympathy, but we could at least get a look at the real factors creating such individuals, instead of the same pervasive "it's the girl's fault she even exists, how dare she have a life of her own" mentality that permeates across all sections of our patriarchal society, in some form and to some degree.

The lawyer might be doing a job, but he did nobody any favors. Neither his clients nor himself. I hope he never has a daughter of his own, given his (reported) claims of what he would do to his daughter if she dares to step outside his defined limits of propriety.


And to all those claiming "justice is served", my only question is do they really believe so? Those men have been proven guilty, but they're a minuscule part of a sick mentality that pervades our entire society, esp. the poor, uneducated sections that are caught in an endless loop of misery and hopelessness.


Only punishment has been handed out today. Justice will be served the day we are able to claim none of our women are or will be treated this way, ever again.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by invincible7

And ofcouse the soo called juvenille gets life even after commiting such a henious crime - not sure what the court was smoking to give this verdict on the day.

I think the court gave the maximum legally allowed punishment to the juvenile. What else could the court have done?

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Invoking Gandhi & Buddha? Really? I doubt either of those men would've approved of shoving an iron rod into someone's private parts.

I don't know what exactly was said by the lawyer about Gandhi or Buddha, but I assume it would have been related to something like the 'an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind' statement made by Gandhi and something similar by Buddha. So whether Gandhi or Buddha would have approved or not of their crimes is not really relevant.

Each one of the criminals got the maximum possible punishment legally possible. So I am not sure why people should be angry at the courts.

Under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, a court cannot decide a criminal case without a lawyer present for the defendant. And the defense lawyer helped in this process.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by carboy

I think the court gave the maximum legally allowed punishment to the juvenile. What else could the court have done?



I don't know what exactly was said by the lawyer about Gandhi or Buddha, but I assume it would have been related to something like the 'an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind' statement made by Gandhi and something similar by Buddha. So whether Gandhi or Buddha would have approved or not of their crimes is not really relevant.........

Reportedly, he invoked one of Gandhi's quotes about "only God having the right to give & take life", among others.

Either way, invoking the teachings/quotes of a man considered the epitome of non-violence in the defense of an accused in a case involving such inhuman violence, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

The law is taking its course, but it's painfully obvious that our legal systems is badly in need of an overhaul to bring it in sync with changing social & economic fabric of our nation. Adhering to an inadequate system just because "that is the system" is not a viable excuse. Systems have been changed in the past, and should be changed again if required.


I believe it was one of your previous posts in this same thread (apologies if I'm wrong) that I agreed with your point that knee-jerk reactions would serve nobody. We need a systematic overhaul to weed out our system's deficiencies. Won't happen easily or in a hurry, but that's no reason not to try.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Reportedly, he invoked one of Gandhi's quotes about "only God having the right to give & take life", among others.

Either way, invoking the teachings/quotes of a man considered the epitome of non-violence in the defense of an accused in a case involving such inhuman violence, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Gandhi said "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life, because he alone gives it." This clearly means that Gandhi didn't believe in capital punishment for even violent crimes and violent criminals.

Pleas note that I am not expressing my agreement or disagreement with Gandhi's philosophy - all I am saying is that the lawyer's quoting of Gandhi was correct and not funny or ironic.

[treadmark]

Though a death sentence was pronounced today bu our Judicial system for these accused but still, I'm also much concerned about a Presidents intervention during mercy appeal.
I had always wondered when Government sent Nirbhaya to Singapore and claimed that was to get her the best treatment available (though the intention was different) WHY couldn't these 4 accused be sent to any Arab countries where they will get the best deserved punishment?

[invincible7]

Originally Posted by carboy

I think the court gave the maximum legally allowed punishment to the juvenile. What else could the court have done?

I am sorry but I fail to understand this argument from your end, do you mean to say the court was helpless and there wasnt much that could have been done to understand the nature of crime - what it has to do with the convict's age - I for one can still understand if it was a theft or some other minor case or even if the minor was being forced to so so. But it wasnt the case in this particular case as per the verdicts presented. There are always instances when one has to stand up and take a clear stand where to make the necessary changes in the law to ensure certain elements dont get scott free just because the laid down law has limitations. If today the court has decided that the category of crime is rarest of the rare and hence capital punishment is apt in this case, tell me what is different then for the soo called juvinille - he was a part of the same group, part of the same crime, just becase he is under age you mean to say he should be withheld differently - I find it as a joke honestly.

[harishpr]

I'm happy to see such a quick verdict.. While Kasab is still rotting and enjoying from tax payers money.
Kudos to judiciary for pulling up their socks and closing this under a year.
Big salute to all those who stood against this crime, especially all youths and shook the government. Big thanks to media who relentlessly followed up every single bit. If not for these, justice would have been delayed.
One last wish though it may not come true. Execute them publicly without face masks. Let every man know about this.

More than all of this, we can find permanent solution only when men change their mind towards women. I plead to all, if you see a woman getting harassed or troubled, please stand up and help. Do not ignore and move on.

[invincible7]

Originally Posted by harishpr

While Kasab is still rotting and enjoying from tax payers money.

He is long gone my friend, its many months now.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by carboy

Gandhi said "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life, because he alone gives it." This clearly means that Gandhi didn't believe in capital punishment for even violent crimes and violent criminals.

Pleas note that I am not expressing my agreement or disagreement with Gandhi's philosophy - all I am saying is that the lawyer's quoting of Gandhi was correct and not funny or ironic.

I'm not trying to argue Gandhi's principles either. I just don't think Gandhi or Buddha had any place in the arguments of this particular case. Gandhi's comments were made in a time & context that's not relevant to this case. Even if he was against capital punishment under 'any circumstances', then I would just agree to disagree with him. Just my personal opinion, not necessarily right.

[govigov]

Quote by AP singh.

""Why don't people first control their daughters? I'd burn my daughter alive if she was having pre-marital sex,roaming around with her boyfriend at night""

This alone proves that he should not be a lawyer. He himself believes that the justice can be delivered by him and that the sentence is to burn a human being alive. This statement also proves that he does not believe in the power vested in our judicial system. (To take matter into his own hands)

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by govigov

Quote by AP singh.

""Why don't people first control their daughters? I'd burn my daughter alive if she was having pre-marital sex,roaming around with her boyfriend at night""

This alone proves that he should not be a lawyer. He himself believes that the justice can be delivered by him and that the sentence is to burn a human being alive. This statement also proves that he does not believe in the power vested in our judicial system. (To take matter into his own hands)

What's truly concerning is this man isn't an isolated example. There are men like him roaming free around us in all walks of life. This man was also part of the 'common man' crowd before this infamous case.

Hanging these convicts won't solve anything if we all go back to life as usual. It's this mentality that needs to be weeded out, not just hanging the criminals once they're convicted and innocent lives already destroyed.