The ramblings of a restless mind - Page 2

I am trying to sound like a responsible adult who can see different sides of this argument but its so hard for me to do that. I cannot. I tried. Granted, Salman Khan should have gotten his punishment years ago... but he did not because of the Indian Judiciary system. But that does not mean that the crime is any less 13 years later. If anything, its very important for people to understand that you cannot commit a crime and then pay for it and have it be forgotten. Paying the family, caring for them, all that should have been done out of regret and guilt but not as a solution to the crime he committed.

Originally posted by: .Kiran.

I see what you're saying but wouldn't all the loaded people get away with their crimes because they have enough money to pay off victim's family? Then what about the poor ones? Would it be fair to send poor to jail for the same crime but let rich ones get away because they have enough money to compensate? Law is there for a reason. It's there to protect the citizens and punish the guilty ones. Personally, I feel guilty party should pay both compensation and serve the time. If everyone could get away by paying off money, loaded ones wouldn't give a damn about other people's lives because they know they have enough money to pay compensation amount and walk around freely. And what if victim's family doesn't need financial support? At least jail time would create some sorta fear in people's mind which can help lessen such accidents if not completely avoid them?

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

As for the specific example you've given, I'm making assumptions and speculating here but it might be a case of the law not catching up with technology. Driving drunk is illegal, if you kill someone driving drunk you could even be charged with voluntary manslaughter. But what do you charge someone who is distracted with their phone? This is what I mean by law not catching up with technology. I'm guessing the cops or DAs couldn't find enough legally to charge her, so then it was up to the victim's family to take it to civil court and ask for monetary compensation, and that's when the rich father came in. She probably wouldn't have served anytime even if her father wasn't rich. The victim's family was compensated. Was justice served? Doesn't seem like it, but what do you do when the law is behind?

Well, this is my take on this.

I believe one of the victims has given an interview expressing satisfaction with Salman's judgement.

India's Judicial system needs to introspect. What is ultimate purpose it wants to achieve with punishment? Retribution? Recidivism? I agree with your rambling. Intent/mens rea is how we hold anyone accountable for a crime. There's a reason why in many countries, defendants have the right to a speedy and fair trial. Reasons to punish are: 1) justice 2) set an example 3) hope the time changes the person so that when they're back in the society, they can integrate. In Salman's case, the judiciary needs to be held accountable for its own negligence. You're telling me it takes 13 years to hold someone accountable? Had this been in any other country, the statute of limitations would have barred the claims by now. I've seen (first hand) in trials where victims are compensated for in such cases (rightly so!), whereas the defendants are sentenced to probation because their crime lacks the intent required to convict them.



PS- texting and driving / drinking and driving are similar. They both amount to recklessness.

Another reason why I think driving intoxicated is the worst decision to make - in the very likely chance that you do something bad like get in an accident, you're in such an effed up state that the subsequent actions will be as irresponsible and stupid.

Bottom line: Don't drink and drive. Coz you may end up paying for a crime you had no intent of committing

Originally posted by: kitkataha

India's Judicial system needs to introspect. What is ultimate purpose it wants to achieve with punishment? Retribution? Recidivism? I agree with your rambling. Intent/mens rea is how we hold anyone accountable for a crime. There's a reason why in many countries, defendants have the right to a speedy and fair trial. Reasons to punish are: 1) justice 2) set an example 3) hope the time changes the person so that when they're back in the society, they can integrate. In Salman's case, the judiciary needs to be held accountable for its own negligence. You're telling me it takes 13 years to hold someone accountable? Had this been in any other country, the statute of limitations would have barred the claims by now. I've seen (first hand) in trials where victims are compensated for in such cases (rightly so!), whereas the defendants are sentenced to probation because their crime lacks the intent required to convict them.



PS- texting and driving / drinking and driving are similar. They both amount to recklessness.

Even in child psychology, they teach is that punishment is only effective if delivered immediately.
Right away.
Only then does it achieve its purpose - to lessen the behavior.

Delayed punishment just ends up confusing the one getting published, for he she doesn't feel at that point the association between them as strongly as if the punishment had been delivered right away.

Originally posted by: desigal90

Another reason why I think driving intoxicated is the worst decision to make - in the very likely chance that you do something bad like get in an accident, you're in such an effed up state that the subsequent actions will be as irresponsible and stupid.

Bottom line: Don't drink and drive. Coz you may end up paying for a crime you had no intent of committing

@desigal: and therein lies the reasoning behind a speedy trial. How can you convict anyone after a decade for a crime? The association is missing, not to forget, the defendant probably has been in enough mental anguish about his or her pending punishment. Here in the States, this would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. It's different when a criminal flees and gets captured after decades. But when the criminal is present, within Court's reach, and yet the Court acts this negligently, that should let you know that the system needs to be reworked. Even Salman's victims want compensation at this stage.

This is a good discussion you're having. Let's hope no one gets called a criminal, supporter of a criminal while we are at it.