Justice..what it means to you..

Shhh..only blondes get confused,remember?

On a serious note, they learn more bad things in prison or reformatory schools than they would if they were made to feel guilty outside. I mean, dont we ask our children to avoid bad apples? Obviously, we are afraid that they would learn something bad from them. So here we are, dumping kids and grown ups with people who are equally if not more experienced than them in crimes. So when society is rejecting them, they are bound to feel justified at treating it as two different sides of the world. If instead we were able to make them feel bad ..I dont know how, but perhaps, aggrieved person could be asked to try to be nice to these people to a fault and parents should make the child feel like a scum bag, then the child would perhaps realize that he or she should not have behaved like that. I know this is tough. But we do the opposite most of the time, isn't it?

You are right. There are always two sides of each coin. We want to punish the wrong doers but we should embrace them once they feel remorse, but it's hard to do that. I for one would feel scared to get close to these people.

But it is very rare that we find all things fulfilled right?

Yes, I agree. However, I see this as an inadequacy of those executing and interpreting our laws. For other States, there may also be inadequacy of laws that can lay down a perfect judicial system. Foremost, these things are not all fulfilled because there are people involved with different predicaments and status in life. There may be times that laws cannot be applied to all due to physical, mental or economic status of the offender and the offended. Of course, corruption comes in treacherously in the picture too.

I think using the precedent system doesnt work for the reasons you've mentioned. I was mentioning to somebody here..Desiree Washington got hefty reward because Tyson was rich, but the trauma of any other girl who is raped by a commoner is no less. However, she gets less amount of compensation for having suffered those moments. Where is the justice in that? Law itself creates disparity. Each case needs to be considered independently. Juries should not be people who have memorized law books. Instead they should be people who have gone through those situations so they can have their heart in it..and know how the accused or aggrieved feels.

That happens in movies, story books, and holy books. Very rarely in real life. :) But I will leave you to your thoughts. Trust me there are aa few things India is heads and shoulders above the rest of the world - corruption and dirty politics. We'd beat anybody hollow in that.

We are still first rankers.. Somewhere we defeat China lkbooi..(not meant to provoke just cussing our system out here).

Well, I'm afraid the Philipines is not far behind when it comes to corruption and dirty politics.

Hi Kala, Happy New Year. :) Let me counter your arguments. A. When you send the person to prison, he or she gets acquainted with other criminals. In the process the person learns more bad things. Remember we tell our children not to watch bad movies, or move with children whome we consider as bad or whose families we consider are not right in some way? So when we send the errant to the prison, arent we only improving his or her knowledge on BAD? Has the system really worked? Have the errants not repeated the crimes and returned more than once to one prison or the other? Then again, even if the person in prison realizes his mistake, and reforms, once outside, society does not let him or her be. So he possibly becomes vengeful or angry at the treatment being meted out to him or her. After all - he or she did serve the term. So where do we draw the line? B. If the aggrieved does not feel avenged then chances are that the aggrieved may take the law in his or her own hands. As to transient nature - the bouts return periodically. But it differs from person to person because people's nature differs. The extent of injury matters. And if we imprison the person, the matter gets magnified in the mind because it gets recorded as a grave wrong - which even though it is - should be recorded as justice done. Here it is the question of feelings and not some objects. So an eye for eye, feeling for feeling ...may be. Not really sure on this but I am just trying to put myself in shoes of somebody and see how it feels. c. I disagree with that. There are ample people in the world who can be made to lecture daily and reform people. Safeguarding ourselves is not really possible without reforming the errants. This is because we may be safe, our children may not when the person comes out of the prison - now with a post graduation in criminal techniques may be. d. I agree about repentence thing..very hard to achieve..but without it...we cant really say the problem is solved. In most cases, aggrieved would be forgiving if he or she feels that the other person is truly repentant for the mistake, and is willing to make amends all the way in life, and has completely reformed and will not repeat the mistakes. That is the ultimate justice I think.

lol you just did. lol Well..punishment should be that from conscience, nothing can trouble us as much as our conscience can. We need to make the person realize. Quite often people dont realize or get into defiant mode or resent being told something. Giving fair chance to be heard is all very well. But at times even people who are in right lose the case because the outcome depends upon the skills of the lawyer who presents the case, and the evidences that can be collected by the day of the judgement. So I would rather it be left to conscience rather than judges and lawyers. At the best a jury comprised of people that have been there and done that..whatever, I am also not very clear about how it should be done but the present system most certainly does not satisfy me.