[sgiitk]

It is shocking that the Verma committee was not provided with any logistic support. It was Mr Gopal Subramanyam's office with provided all of this. Also, it is very clear the Govt never thought that they will deliver within the month. Remember both J.Verma and J.Seth are 80+ (80 and 82 to be precise). I am sure when they learnt that they are actually going to deliver that a hurried response was sent by the GoI the previous evening. lmost no cops bothered to respond either.Now it will be lost and buried unless there is an outcry.

[CaliAtenza]

Originally Posted by manolin

The Justice Verma committee report is out. I am presently on Chapter 1, but the introduction/scope of the report section is so beautifully written, that I would go ahead and recommend people to read it - considering that the discussions in this thread (and outside) have been for summary justice to handed out.

You can download the report here.

wow thats long, when i have some time, i will sit down and read that .

[CaliAtenza]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...des-women.html

"In a sense it is fitting that the alleged rapists and murderers lived within touching distance of our politicians. In the 2009 parliamentary elections, India’s political parties fielded 6 candidates charged with rape while 34 candidates were awaiting trial for crimes against women. In the state assemblies, 42 members had rape or associated charges against them at the time of their election. In all, according to a recent report published by the Association for Democratic Reforms, India has over 300 such politicians in power."

unbelievable, but not surprising..

[download2live]

The Minor-Animal lives on.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/18224801.cms

At this rate soon we will have cases where not only the girl was raped, but also eaten up raw by these monsters.

[joe1980]

Originally Posted by download2live

The Minor-Animal lives on.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/18224801.cms

At this rate soon we will have cases where not only the girl was raped, but also eaten up raw by these monsters.

This is simply not fair. None of the 6 accused are fit to live. They are a threat to the society. What is the guarantee that they will not commit such a crime after their prison terms?

[sa_kiran]

Originally Posted by joe1980

This is simply not fair. None of the 6 accused are fit to live. They are a threat to the society. What is the guarantee that they will not commit such a crime after their prison terms?

This is the Juvenile Justice Board's ruling. I'm not sure if he can be tried in SC. I'm looking forward to a repeat of Supreme Court saves from noose man who raped daughter, killed her, wife

[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.)

[selfdrive]

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.

Is this hope of people changing stronger than the risk that we are exposing other people to, just by letting this person off the hook? Yes, there have been multiple cases where criminals have gone back to doing what they got away with. Why do we want to reform 1 person at the cost of risking the lives and limbs of others?

[manolin]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Is this hope of people changing stronger than the risk that we are exposing other people to, just by letting this person off the hook? Yes, there have been multiple cases where criminals have gone back to doing what they got away with. Why do we want to reform 1 person at the cost of risking the lives and limbs of others?

That way any one who commits a crime should be locked up in Jail forever - because there is risk that they may commit again.

It is all about checks and balances - people should go to jail because they committed a wrong, learn that the reward for that wrong is unpleasant jail time, hopefully learn't some skills in jail which will allow them to lead a rightful life after jail. This is a theory - and this theory is based on a lot of hope - and belief in the essential good nature of man.

[Otherwise we go to the system of hacking people's limbs if they commit crime (thats pure deterrance principle - where the consequences are so high that you frighten the criminals into not committing any wrongs).] - I do not want to go into that - life imprisonment for full life, death, are all deterance models - they have limited place in civilised society - because we believe in the essential good nature of man - we believe in our ability to bring out the good in men who do not believe in it themshelves.

I am sorry - the above bit got a little rambled off. I hope what I want to say is understandable. Basically,

(i) since the process of enforcement of law can be very easily tampered with, it is essential to keep capital punishment/full life imprisonment type sentences far away. There are lots of situations where death sentence has been given wrongly and the person executed (inspite of death sentence having some of hardest to satisfy criterion) - just see President Pranab's recent record - he rejected mercy petitions of people whom 13 retired judges of SC said were given the death sentence due to wrong interpretation of law.

(ii) Checks and balances are necessary part of criminal sentencing system because society is civilised. Juvenile justice is part of that system of checks and balances.

(iii) This particular case should not be read/sentenced any differently from what is the standard applied to others.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Why do we want to reform 1 person at the cost of risking the lives and limbs of others?

I don't think manolin is talking about reforming just 1 person. I think he is talking about juveniles and juvenile law in general.

There is a reason juveniles are not
- allowed to vote
- not allowed to consume alcohol
- not allowed to be drafted into the armed forces
- not allowed to get into many kinds of contracts
etc

There are many reasons for this
- they aren't mature or responsible enough to make the right decisions
- their judgement isn't good.

There are similar reasons why juvenile laws are different from laws for adults.

So the question here is we should have juvenile laws at all? So everyone be treated the same. If that is so, then tomorrow, someones very smart kid may have a momentary lapse of reason and do some minor crime - may be tried as an adult - may go to jail, may end up with a criminal record and it may ruin his whole life. So before making changes to laws, it would be good to think long and hard.

Police and Government will always be ready for harsher laws, stricter punishment, lesser burden of proof on the part of the government in criminal cases, separate laws for terrorism, separate laws for rapists, separate laws for hate crime, separate laws for whatever is occupying the emotion of the country currently etc. It benefits them. Who will be harmed by this is the common citizens. The rich and the powerful will always have ways and means to shield themselves. So before asking for all kind of changes, it may help pause and think.

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by manolin

This is a theory - and this theory is based on a lot of hope - and belief in the essential good nature of man.

All that is fine till these people are not let loose on the streets free to commit the next crime. Do we have anything in place to monitor and track these folks who have been/ will be let out on goodwill? So that they stay away from schools and dont have access to minors at the least?
As long as the answer to that is no, I am sorry to say that such hope and belief in the good nature of such men is misplaced. Or let me say it another way, I am selfish enough to see to it that innocent civilians are not put in the way of a criminal as guinea pigs.
It is as bad as getting a rail engine to run amok on a pedestrian street without any controls.

Originally Posted by carboy

There are many reasons for this
- they aren't mature or responsible enough to make the right decisions
- their judgement isn't good.

I think even so called juveniles (I am talking about 16 year olds here) know that if they insert an iron rod into someone's body, it will hurt. This even a 6 year old knows as long as they are sane/ sensitive enough.
If a person is not sane enough to know this, as a citizen its not too unreasonable to demand that we be kept safe from such people?

[manolin]

Originally Posted by carboy

Police and Government will always be ready for harsher laws, stricter punishment, lesser burden of proof on the part of the government in criminal cases, separate laws for terrorism, separate laws for rapists, separate laws for hate crime, separate laws for whatever is occupying the emotion of the country currently etc. It benefits them. Who will be harmed by this is the common citizens. The rich and the powerful will always have ways and means to shield themselves. So before asking for all kind of changes, it may help pause and think.

thanks carboy, you articulated it much better than I could manage. I have exactly the same thoughts.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

I think even so called juveniles (I am talking about 16 year olds here) know that if they insert an iron rod into someone's body, it will hurt. This even a 6 year old knows as long as they are sane/ sensitive enough.
If a person is not sane enough to know this, as a citizen its not too unreasonable to demand that we be kept safe from such people?

Again, I am not talking about the case in question. I am talking about juvenile law in general. Also, I haven't mentioned sanity anywhere. Insanity is also a defense - insane people typically don't get sentenced to death or long jail terms. They are sent to a mental hospital, I think.

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by carboy

Again, I am not talking about the case in question. I am talking about juvenile law in general. Also, I haven't mentioned sanity anywhere. Insanity is also a defense - insane people typically don't get sentenced to death or long jail terms. They are sent to a mental hospital, I think.

I dont think anyone here cares where they are sent as long as they dont have an opportunity to repeat the dose of crime to someone else. Be it a mental hospital or a jail. Letting someone loose for such a crime is akin to abetment of the next crime.
Reforming could be applied subjectively on a case to case basis. And only a shorter sentence never reformed anyone, it has to be a collective effort involving multiple parties sustained over a period of time.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

I dont think anyone here cares where they are sent as long as they dont have an opportunity to repeat the dose of crime to someone else. Be it a mental hospital or a jail. Letting someone loose for such a crime is akin to abetment of the next crime.

Successful insanity defenses may not end up sending the person to a mental hospital for life.

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Reforming could be applied subjectively on a case to case basis. And only a shorter sentence never reformed anyone, it has to be a collective effort involving multiple parties sustained over a period of time.

You are missing the point - mine and manolins.