Something that we must thank somewhere is the contribution of the British establishment to India is the introduction of their legal system which we follow to this day . Having attended legal lectures at the National Law School of India university (NLSIU) a keen interest in this sector has emerged in the way legal systems and jurisprudence works; that we have a largely evolved legal system in India partially used and abused augurs well for the growth and stability of our society.
However the English Legal system is not without its own set of ambiguities and would work less effectively if the law is not understood and applied properly by people responsible for the systems of the law. The English legal system derives its fundamentals from the ancient Greeks.
I somewhere quantify legal systems that emerge from two distinct domains namely crimes that are of an unilateral kind and crimes that are of a bilateral kind. This is what I mean by the paradox of the law in essence when unilateral and bilateral crimes lay embedded and not conspicuous. It is not enough to say "You are innocent until proved guilty" but must be "you are relatively innocent to a guilt." Guilt cannot be relative but innocence can be and will always be and if jurisprudence does not look at legal situations in this manner the magnitude of error can be more deviant.
I find a problem in the way law is implemented in that a police station which is the imposer of the law does not have legal support handy which means that the imposers of the law must act not in ignorance of the law and its principles but well within it and if the process does not commence at that focal point many a relatively innocent would be forced to face the unjust part of the juggernaut called law with sparing and long drawn options for relief. Not that they are not doing it --they are.... but there is a finer view of many situations that make a man explicit to a guilt as against being partially implicit and the difference between these two stations may not be too remarkable to be significant. The modern man is characterized by an environment which is highly information enlivened and the possibility of some one inadvertently or through design committing some of fence is increasingly magnified.
Let me expand on what is a Unilateral crime as against a Bilateral crime. May be law encompasses all these concepts in itself in some form or the other but does a person get imminent justice is the question of relevance. Unilateral crime is something some one commits through planning with no aberration of any kind from the victim of the crime. The question of the law is "Was there an initiation in some form however miniscule from the victim of the crime". If there isn't the perpetrator of the crime is "Innocent until proved guilty" and the perpetrator gets minimum relief from the tenets of the law and its various agencies.
The concept of relative innocence emerges when the victim of a crime has in some form committed an aberration which created the crime and dependent on the crime itself the perpetrator of the crime is entitled to the concept of relative innocence. Depending upon the nature of the of fence appropriate dealing must be done and if the offense committed is not largely invasive and pungent with some legal procedures the perpetrator can be let go. It is a crime in itself not to examine relative innocence in the execution of legal systems.
Having said so much the "Paradox of the Law " is the inability of the legal systems to upfront examine relative innocence or also could be called relative guilt depending upon the dimension from which one sees it and the challenge is to treat a bilateral crime from this view point upfront and with imminence.
Post a Comment