Episode # 35: Justice - Open your Eyes!
Indicast is back with its 35th episode and for Vastu reasons, we’ve postponed our “new look” for one of our next episodes. 
Register yourself now! We would love to know all you guys better. The registration page will take you not more than a few seconds… and did we mention, Indicast has a ‘No Spam Policy’!
Moving on…
In this episode, we discuss the spree of criminal cases that india has had to tackle in the past couple of months. Priyadarshini Mattoo, Jesica Lal, Mohd Afzal et al. The Supreme Court was more in the news this quarter than it has been in the past decade. With all eyes on how deftly it treats the high profile case of Jesica Lal, the Supreme Court has its task cut out.
If doctors take the Hippocratic Oath vowing ethical practice of medicine, do Lawyers have a similar oath? Professionally, the 77 year old criminal lawyer, Ram Jethmalani has every right to defend Manu Sharma. But, does his profession see client above truth and justice? You tell us.
We also try to propose a solution to terrorism. Well, it ain’t a politically correct one. But, what the heck… terrorism ain’t sacred either.
Episode Notes:
- Ramjethmalani tries to play god to Manu Sharma in the high profile Jesica Lal case.
- Indian Penal Code defines death penalty.
- Ram Jethmalani fumes as Karan Thapar tries to douse the flames with some more fuel.
- Mohd Afzal attacks the Indian Parliament, but, the electric chair might just evade him
- Afzal’s wife pleads for clemency in this letter addressed to the nation.
Yours Internetally,
Abhishek
P.S : Intro music provided by Alms for Shanti
Listen Online (64 kbps) :/Episode length : 20 mins
|
|
Downloading episode :64kbps (size ~10 Mb),
Note: Right-click on the above MP3 link and chose “Save target as” to download the file on your computer.
You can also subscribe to Indicast using these channels (its free) to get automatic updates:
Is it my computer, or is there something wrong with the mp3 file? I just get an error message on this one. sad.
Comment by jpalos — November 27, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
Jpalos: what are you using to download/listen? itunes?
Comment by Aditya — November 27, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Just a quick comment - I think that even if the defendant committed the crime, the defense lawyer is responsible to make sure the prosecution’s evidence is comprehensively understood as well as protecting the defendant from an unreasonable sentence if the defendant is convicted.
And, professionals in any industry whether business, law, music, sports, etc. - they should act professional. But nowadays, the line between professional and unprofessional becomes blurred as famous people are becoming more and more accepted for less discipline control of their emotions…
Comment by Shalin — November 28, 2006 @ 4:14 am
Shlain : Good point, I actually wanted to ask a question as to
How many people think that rich or the “well connected” people get away with crime ?
Comment by Aditya — November 28, 2006 @ 8:45 am
I think many celebrities or wealthy people get away with crimes. the worst that usually occurs is community service or some kind of “sensitivity training” (which I think is a good thing but is never is branded as an empowering activity…”
1) the ones prosecuting them are a bit intimidated about the consequences of well connected people
2) the fact that they are soo famous give the literal “star effect” - the stars in the night sky are quite dazzling, but up close can be quite chaotic…
Comment by Shalin — November 28, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
talking about stars escaping crime… Sanjay dutt gets relief.. I guess the gandhigiri paid off
Comment by Aditya — November 28, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
How many people think that rich or the “well connected” people get away with crime ?
Of course they get away with things! And not just crime, with anything! A well placed beaurocrat contact in an office assures your work gets done. A well placed friend in a police station gets your obnoxious son off.
Everything is about contacts and favors and oneupmanship.
Comment by Ram — November 28, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
Shalin & Ram: Well connected people have a right to get away! They only confirm George Orwell’s thought that ‘All men are equal… but some are more equal than others.’ The law will be upheld for eternity, but, once in a while a Santosh Singh will be hanged and such exceptions give the common man some hope to believe that indeed all men are equal before law.
Comment by Abhishek — November 29, 2006 @ 3:31 am
I think the government should at least think about Abhishek’s idea of undetectable poison. There should not even be a question of pardoning anybody involved in terrorist attacks. It looks like these social activist don’t have anything else to do than pardoning a terrorist, and question the law in every decision the court makes.
Comment by Mayur — December 1, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
And “undetectable poison” is only as good as the detector to detect it. And…what is to say that such a “undetectable poison” does not already exist? behind some closed doors are other “worlds” that we’re not yet even aware of…
Comment by Shalin — December 1, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
wait…I wrote that incorrectly. The thing about the “undetectable poison”. bottom line - someone just need to figure out a way to detect it, and the word is out.
Comment by Shalin — December 1, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
In response to: “Well connected people have a right to get away! ”
I disagree! Why do well connected people have a right to get away? Does the fact a person has the money to “buy” politicians or have powerful friends make any statement about the person’s innocense or guilt in a criminal matter? It’s another fact that well connected people do get away with crimes just because they are who the are. But this is no right. This is abuse of the system. Equity before the law is the right!
Comment by Ram — December 2, 2006 @ 7:30 am
Also in response to the question posed the introduction paragraph above: “If doctors take the Hippocratic Oath vowing ethical practice of medicine, do Lawyers have a similar oath?”
There is a oath! It might not be as outwardly stated as the Hippocratic Oath in medicine, but it does exist. It is the same oath that anyone takes to become a valued member of society– a basic oath of humanity, equity and justice. Of course its not upheld by everyone all the time, but then neither is the Hippocratic Oath by doctors.
The question is what is ethical behaviour? Is it ethical to let a serial killer, a rapist, a petty thief to fend for themselves in the complicated mess that is the Indian judicial system? Yes, these people might have committed a wrong. But ethically, lawyers have the responsibility to defend their clients and do what is in their client’s best interest. Ideally, if a lawyer becomes aware that his client is guilty he would advise his client to take the ethical actions and turn himself him, plead guilty etc… If nothing else, an ethical lawyer would recuse himself. A lawyer after all, just as a doctor or anyone else, is an advocate and agent for his client. Breaking the sanctity of that relationship bears just as much consequence as fighting on behalf of a guilty client.
The question then becomes is he to keep this information to himself and fulfill this responsibility, trust, and confidentiality to his client or (as an ethical private citizen should do) reveal this inner knowledge. With all this said, there are obviously exceptions to everything…including this.
Comment by RamPSridhar — December 2, 2006 @ 7:46 am
Ram: I was being sarcastic. But, I guess, i could not put it across as I intended it to. I’ll take care next time. And we are glad to know that there is somone out there who is taking a stand on what he feels is right!
Shalin: I agree with you. The poison is undetectable only momentarily. And I am also sure that the government would have brainstormed the idea and probably knew better. But, I think they should give it a thought and not use the ’strategy’ consistently. May be on occassions such as the Kandahar one…
Ram P Sridhar: Every person, whether guilty or innocent has the right to a lawyer… coz in Indian law, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, the assumption with which the case starts is that every person is innocent. So, on technicality, you are right. Or may be we have to learn to think beyond. Ram Jethmalani wants to defend Manu Sharma only for one reason. Jethmalani feels that media would dismember Manu Sharma like vultures if he doesn’t get a fair trial (which everyone is entitled to). He also filed a suit against the TOI and argued to have the case fought inside the court rooms and not in the news papers. It is a different story that the court ruled it against him. The only problem I see is that since the court cases are pending for decades together. Hence, a significant per centage of the population are not inclined to fight. Now I understand what ‘Justice delayed is justice failed’ means. Keep commenting. Your views were quite perceptive!
Comment by Abhishek — December 5, 2006 @ 12:47 pm