More to hide under the robe!

George Bernard Shaw is said to have said, "whenever you wish to do anything against the law, always consult a good solicitor first." At a time when the law is often called upon to decide the appropriateness of the action of one in power, doing the right thing in the eyes of the law is more important than ever.

It used to be that wars were planned by generals and executed by soldiers with the national leaders as their chief commander. Not anymore now. Over the years, it is increasingly evident that members of the legal fraternity play an ever-important central role in the targeting and other military operations. They are known as war lawyers.

Since after World War 2, the world started looking at how badly humans treat each other in the name of defence of ideology. They realised the dire need to dictate how to act 'humanely' in the face of conflict; how to behave with civility looking at the mouth of impending death! Law was applied for this purpose.

The War Lawyers interpreted and examined the laws of war in and out. They applied these laws in aerial targeting operations carried out by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israel military in Gaza. They justified their attacks, quoting prevailing laws to plan carnage whilst escaping subsequent legal scrutiny or percussions. They define who legitimate targets are. War is no longer confined to combatant. It legitimised violence against civilians. The net effect of all these is the progressive rise in the number of civilians being caught in the line of fire. They are given names like plain-clothes combatants, human shields and decoy to cover their faux pas. Sometimes we wonder whether there is any truth in these allegations of the contrary as the machines of destruction become increasingly precise to the dot.

I did come into a friendly conversation with a senior lawyer friend about defending a person who had actually committed a particular crime. In some many words that he had explained, my understanding was that it was the onus of the prosecuting officer to prove his client's guilt. It was not up to him to expose his client's misdeed. He was mentioning things like solicitor-client confidentiality and the need for everyone to have adequate representation, but not once was the question of morality or doing the right thing did come up.

I guess the purpose of the court is to uphold the law, not mete justice. Money can buy watertight defence and maybe witnesses too. To add on to Shaw's proposition, one should get the right solicitor when one is accused of a crime. It does not matter whether he actually carried the act. The adage that 'the truth will prevail' is outdated.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

Justice as it is seen

If Beale Street Could Talk (2018)

If we learn anything from the biography of Ruben 'Hurricane' Carter and the 'Innocence Project', one thing is clear. There is no justice. The act of upholding the law and maintaining peace is just a facade to dupe everyone into believing that everything is hunky dory. Well, it is far from the truth for the voiceless and the economically deprived. They always get the short end of the stick. The slum dweller, the coloured, the illiterate and the poor invariably end up as part of the statistics for society to brag about the progress they had made. The elites and the haves more often than not escape punishment. Like it or not, the world is not fair. Justice remains only poetic to sooth the romantics and a promise to the helpless in the afterlife.

Set in the 1970s, at a time when racial discrimination still reared its ugly head despite what The Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr's death made us believe, the film is a love story of two young black Americans. The story is based on James Baldwin's epic novel with the same name.

Growing together in the poor side of the family, the couple was about to start to build a home when the boy is arrested for rape. Even though the charges seem trumped up by a vengeful cop and there are many loopholes in the investigation, the system makes it so difficult for a black man to be freed.

The film speaks volumes of reality not only in the American marketplace but of many backyards in the four corners of the world.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

No county for the poor!

Innocent Man (2018)
Miniseries S1E1-E6.

This documentary series is an engaging one. It is based on John Grisham's sole non-fiction book based on two murders that happened in a small town in Oklahoma named Ada. Through two unrelated cases that occurred in this place in the years 1982 and 1984, the author tries to highlight the weakness of the American judicial system. 

Debbie Carter was raped and killed in her home in 1982. Denise Haraway was allegedly kidnapped and murdered in 1984. Two men each were convicted for each crime. There were striking similarities in the handling of the cases - a common witness and the same prosecution and investigative team.

The docuseries with Grisham's investigations and a separate team of journalists with a little help from 'Innocence Project', managed to illustrate how the system is so rotten to the core. Up to 4% of prison inmates in American prisons that accounts to 90,000 of them are wrongly convicted and are spending term for crimes they never committed. With the rush to finish off a case, to put a closure to a seemingly unsolvable mysteries, many corners are cut. Lengthy and exhausting interrogations tire suspects to submissions. Invariably, people at the lowest rung of the social pecking order are worst hit. Poverty denies competent legal representations. No doubt, the system ensures that everyone is given a chance to defend themselves, the level of competence may vary. The police, in their haste to close a case, may suppress evidence or purposely take shortcuts. Whatsmore, officers in high positions may have political ambitions and also under pressure from the members of the society. Justice needs to be seen to done and with prompt. 

The storytellers managed to tell, in a convincing manner, a fair account from both the aggrieved as well as the accused, to suggest that the wrong men had wasted many of productive years behind bars due to the weakness of the system. In the case of Debbie Carter, the introduction of DNA in forensic studies was a shot in the arm. Both accusers in her case were released, one just five days before his planned execution. Incarceration scarred the men for life. The remaining two accused in Denise Haraway's case are awaiting justice to be done on them.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/riflerangeboy/

Two sides of the coin?

The Ramayana

R.K. Narayan (1972)

We all know the story of the Ramayana. The original epic poem contained 24,000 verses and 500 chapters, written by Valmiki in 4 BCE. It has many versions as it had been translated into many Indian languages and non-Indian languages. As the Hindu influence spread over the archipelago, Ramayana had been narrated in Thailand, Malaya. Indonesia and Burma. The version that was written by the Tamil poet, Kamban, is said to give plenty of weightage to Ravana's courts' proceedings and Sita's predicaments after the well-fought war against Lanka. 

The discourse that went on among the Asura brothers on the days before the Northerners' attack is worthy of mention. It tells us a lot of how civil servants or any member of an organisation would (‽ or should) react in a case of a moral dilemma. When Raavan summoned his brothers to help him out against attack from Rama's Army and his band of monkeys, each of them responded differently. 

Vibishana, the honourable one, totally disagreed on Raavan's action of kidnapping somebody's wife against all her cries and pleas and justifying his misdeeds as a tit-for-tat against violence against their sister. He did not want to condone any of his actions. Hence, he fled the scene and did not want anything to do with the defence of Lanka. But, he went on to volunteer information to the enemy which eventually caused Raavan's downfall. Is that right? It could a subject of protracted discussion.

Then, there was Kumbakarna, another brother who also did not approve of Raavan's kidnapping of a respectable woman. Because of the brother's previous help to him and the fact that 'blood is thicker than water', Kumbakarna decided to stay back and fight for his brother. To him, the familial bond was more important than judging the merit of Raavan's misdeeds.

On the other hand, Kuberan the sloth was oblivious to everything that was going on. He was in a deep slumber as he always was when all these was going on. Only when he was provoked at the climax when everything was going on, he charged headlong. By then it had a little bit too late. Does that not remind you of many around us who seem aloof of their surroundings. Only when things go pear-shaped, and things hit the fan, do they suddenly peel open their eyes to see.

Sita's Fire Ordeal
exoticindiaart.com

If you think Ramayana is all about the stoic Rama and his stance of facing all adversities like a good son and a good ruler, you are wrong. Sita had her fair chance of misfortunes. She thought she was getting married to be a queen, but turns of events eventually made her end up dressed in bark parchment to undergo exile in the forest for 14 years. As if that was not enough, Sita had to be kidnapped. Despite being faithful to the vows she made to the celestial bodies during the wedding, her chastity was suspected. Of all persons, it had to be Rama. She saw the change in him after the release from Lanka. Rama did all the search and fight not for love and affection but as a duty. Anyway, that is what is expected of a king-in-exile when his consort is abducted. And of all things, Sita had to prove her innocence via a fire ritual. For Rama, the people's perception was more important. Is this the Dharma that he talks about? Things were never the same after that. Her later self-imposed exile is a testimony of that.

People spent a lifetime trying to read and re-read the Ramayana to understand the wisdom imbibed in its poem. Narayan condenses the whole epic into a small, readable edition for the general public to peruse in any way they want; as a story, a philosophical discourse or a holy book.