11-25-2004, 10:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-samudra_gupta+Nov 25 2004, 10:02 PM-->QUOTE(samudra_gupta @ Nov 25 2004, 10:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> While i do agree that the level of corruption in the system is high , it should be understood that established law procedures , precedents set by a number of other higher authorities are ithe ones which the judges are supposed to use as guidelines in arriving at their decisions.It is not the individual arriving at the system, he is merely a tool.You cannot blame the tool.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[QUOTE]
My point exactly.
The judges are a "tool" of the "system"; they don't have to answer questions about their personal fitness. How does that tally with the concept of nyaay? After all, it is their judgment and wisdom that is at play when they evaluate cases. I say they *should* have to answer such questions. But people are willing to be herded like sheep in the pen of secularism, as you are when you tell us "that's the system".
Not only that, while bleating about "rights", in the same breath you betray your utter ignorance of that system. People don't "get a chance to prove their innocence" in court. Their accusers have to *prove* them guilty before calling them murderers. What constitutes *proof* is the part where *judgment* comes in. So, how can we say justice is served *unless* we are confident about those very judges?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[QUOTE]
My point exactly.
The judges are a "tool" of the "system"; they don't have to answer questions about their personal fitness. How does that tally with the concept of nyaay? After all, it is their judgment and wisdom that is at play when they evaluate cases. I say they *should* have to answer such questions. But people are willing to be herded like sheep in the pen of secularism, as you are when you tell us "that's the system".
Not only that, while bleating about "rights", in the same breath you betray your utter ignorance of that system. People don't "get a chance to prove their innocence" in court. Their accusers have to *prove* them guilty before calling them murderers. What constitutes *proof* is the part where *judgment* comes in. So, how can we say justice is served *unless* we are confident about those very judges?