It is well known that my knowledge of law and legal matters is just as good as my knowledge of other things under the sun (little less than nothing). So when i decided to write something about two disturbing events of the day, i was happy i was treading a familiar path (of ignorance and contrarian views).
First, the arrest of three cricketers
Heart bleeds to learn what competition and the pressure to perform (and make a livelihood out of that performance) has done to sportsmen in particular and people in general. Competition is so fierce and the stakes for success are very high and there is nothing called sports anymore. The unfortunate ones get 'stung' and the lucky ones masquarade with heads high.
As someone deeply affected and very closely witness to some irregularities, i have learnt that truth gets obfuscated very easily. The weakest link in a chain gets penalised, always. Anyone can be made vulnerable in today's society. It is sometimes lack of opportunity that seperates the condemned from the hero, otherwise the vast majority are all the same.
Second, rejection of bail to the G-accused
My knowledge of law is ridiculously low and i always expect commonsense as an overriding principle for any legal decision. So when i heard (over the never-to-miss news channels) how the judge rejected the bail pleas of the accused, i wondered how could that hold water. Here are my two cents..
To assume that the people in quesion might influence the outcome if let out is preposterous. They are all powerful enough to influence from whereever they are and therefore keeping them inside the confines of a Tihar cannot insure secrecy. And hence not a tenable argument for denying bail
To assume there could be threat to their lives if left out is equally absurd as it goes to prove either there is a larger criminal waiting outside or there are more wolves in sheep's clothing outside than inside.
To assume that a strong message to all errants is sent by denying bail (enough discussed how weak this argument is) is also equally distressing a thought. What happens if even one of them is later proved innocent and acquitted. Would that mean the message actually was "punish the innocent, irrespective"
As i prefaced, my knowledge of legal matters is abysmally low. The worry is that the legal world operates on precedences. I don't know how much this 'sending a message' theorem will be the binding principle in future judgments.
