Originally posted by: ..Underworld..
hey...i didnt make the laws...and i dont think they benefit the rich and powerful...there are many rich people who have been convicted...yes it is tough to convict them but it's not because there's a fault in law...it's because of their links and ties with politicians who can then buy the witnesses, bribe the officers incharge, threaten the witness...
No one is stopping anyone from discussing politics, just that one should not accuse any public figure of something without any basis
but i do think there's one law that they should change...all the cost incurred by the victim in the whole court proceedings should be extracted from the guilty ...in usa it's like that if im not wrong
I don't think that is how it is in the US, costs are normally not awarded to the victor of a case, though I believe it happens sometimes. That is a good thing because otherwise a poor person will be very afraid to take matters to court.
Assume a poor person is fighting a case against a rich company. The company would normally have a team of very expensive lawyers. It is not necessary that being correct is sufficient to win a case, lawyers can twist points around and everyone including the judge and jury are humans and even assuming they are not corrupt, may still not be blessed with sadhbuddhi.
Now, if the loser has to bear costs and the poor individual loses, he would now be burdened with the cost of the team of lawyers on the company's payroll. The only times that awarding costs makes sense is when the lawsuit itself is very obviously frivolous.
Hindi TV Shows
