Bombay HC to decide Salman Khans appeal against conviction - Page 10

Originally posted by: -PhoenixD-

If u knw so much why do u go testify for all this!
Ur list of assumptions lol!

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic

There is an inherent flaw or strength in the way Law is designed - whatever your perspective is.

It will give maximum number of chances to the charged. S/he doesn't have to do anything to prove his/her innocence. The Prosecution is there to prove it with cold hard facts that the accused is indeed guilty. Now, the accused is of course free to counter the prosecution, which is what Salman did.

In real world, court cases drag because it's difficult to prove someone guilty from the onset. Unless it's a case of clear-cut murder, robbery, rape, etc., the court has to listen to both parties. Even when the case is clear-cut, the accused always has the right to defend himself.

Salman has the money and reach, which he can use to defend himself. That's a basic right every human shares. Not only Salman. We're only hearing about this because Salman is a star. There are thousands of such cases pending in court and they have to balance all the cases that are filed. That takes time.

The Justice system is designed to protect the innocent more than punish the convict. You wouldn't want to sentence every accused because chances are - they mayn't be guilty, or there may be other reasons that could support what they did. If the court started acting recklessly, they'd endanger the lives of common people. You can't work with a negative spectrum. You have to ensure that every person has the right to free and unbiased trail, which is what the court considers first and foremost.

Hence, the court has to choose - whether to allow 10 guilty people to sentence or ensure the safety of 1 individual even if that meant 10 criminals would walk free; and they chose the latter.

That's one of the reasons why cases drag on. It's not just Salman's case that is the first to drag on.

We're living in a capitalistic world. Individuals who can afford the best lawyers will do that and such lawyers are the best because of their ability to find loopholes and help defend their clients. If such loopholes didn't exist, we'd have more innocent people in jail than the actual guilty parties.

The system is flawed, but you also have to look at it morally. Why would you want to change a system where a criminal may get away with crime, but an innocent stands in danger of suffering?

Forget Salman for a while. You're arguing based on emotions and things you've read/seen in the media. If I asked you to prove with cold facts and evidences against Salman, you won't be able to do it. And, that's what the Court wants.

Corruption, deceit, forgery et al. do exist. It'd be unfair to say Salman is innocent. Only he knows that. At the Court, however, it doesn't matter. Presentation and logic do. With logic, you always have a counter-logic - and using such tools, one can prolong cases for a long period.

As for victims, in this specific case, the victim themselves have come ahead and asked for monetary compensation. Due to the legal procedure though, Salman has to be ordered by the court to do such a thing; otherwise, it'd be tampering with witnesses, which is why I said that the legal process is as much flawed as it is advantageous.

In general cases, the sympathy remains with the victims. Yet, the court cannot pay heed to emotions. They're a logical institution, so sooner or latter, they will use logic to disect a case and offer an adequate sentence to the convict and if applicable, pay compensation to the victims. That's not always the case though.

When a case reaches the court, it's never about emotions. That's one of the reasons why many prefer a legal settlement over an outright court trial. It's beneficial to both parties because trails can drag on - settlements are settled easily.

I know how law work i have studied it mine self. All i see you are trying to make excuses for Salman to play with the law.

He has the right to defend him self , i know that, that is law. He did that now for so many years, in a wrong way. Dragging the case, buying off people, proof that suddenly is gone etc.

Dont minuse the law? And we all know he did.

I dont think anyone is saying he cant defend himself. Thats is how law work, i know that?

I know other cases can be drag too, if the suspect has money and power, it happens, i know especially in country like India where there is a lot coruption. But that doesnt make it allrigth does it.

Originally posted by: Kareenafanatic

For those of you complaining, here are two cornerstones of Justice:

- Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt;
- Blackstone Formulation:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

So, if you understand little bit of Law, the emphasis of the Court is usually in consistency to these principles. They're compelled to give the accused as many chances to prove him or herself innocent until there is no doubt that s/he did commit the crime.

In Salman's case, they're doing the same.

If you look at rationally, the Court doesn't "know" anything. You have to prove it. It's on the Prosecution to prove that a person is guilty of criminal offences. The ante is on them. The defence doesn't have to prove their innocence.

Whether Salman is innocent or guilty in reality is another thing. As long as the prosecutor fails to prove his guilt BEYOND reasonable doubt, the case goes on. This happens because the Law believes in the Blackstone formulation. It would rather have 10 guilty people free than judge an innocent to sentence.