by Javed Jamil
freedom and opportunity to fulfil his needs and desires within the prescribed boundaries, and to isolate and, if need be, to eliminate those elements that pose serious threats to the life, property and honour of others.
The economic fundamentalists found it difficult, in an effective legal system, to pursue their exploitative tactics; so, they mobilised public opinion, through distorted logics, all over the world in favour of a legal system that does not adequately punish the convict, and that allows delay in justice, that more often than not, results in denial of justice. This has led to a steep rise in crime rates in all those countries where such legal system is in operation. It is high time now we recognised the vices of this system and reconsidered alternatives that would establish and maintain a crime-free (or low-crime) society.
The most glaring deficiency of almost all the prominent systems is that they emphasise only upon fundament rights, underscore fundamental duties and altogether ignore fundamental prohibitions. This two - dimensional approach is inadequate in maintaining order in society. Besides, it is inherently dangerous, as it unleashes forces of devastation in mankind. No society can maintain order and tranquility unless it has its sets of restrictions, its members do not only claim for their own rights, but are also duty-bound to help in its survival and development, and they are not in a position to, even if they want, deny others their rights. A three dimensional approach is, therefore, mandatory if the totally paralysed and redundant law has to be rejuvenated. The two-dimensional constitutions, without any express provisions of fundamental prohibitions, guarantee rights only for the strong and those rights of the weak that the strong seek to exploit. The three-dimensional approach, on the contrary, with explicit Fundamental Prohibitions, is a guarantee for the rights of all the members of society including the weak and underprivileged. Fundamental Prohibitions must be aimed at ensuring the same trio of objectives -- Individual Health, Family Peace and Social Order, the three essential components of what can be called Grand Peace.
The punishment must depend upon the effects of a particular act on individual, family or society. Murder and rape are the most heinous crimes; persons committing them have no right to live. A murderer, if he is not convicted, or receives punishment of imprisonment is often emboldened to repeat the crime. The ability of most of the murderers to escape the gallows encourages potential criminals. Presently, in majority of the countries including India, death sentence is awarded in only “the rarest of rare” cases. It must instead, be given in all cases, where the charge has been convincingly proved, except where it has been committed in self-defence or unintentionally, or the heirs of the deceased are ready to pardon him, with or without any compensation. Similarly, a rapist must be executed in full public view, except when the victim is ready to marry him. Adultery is a big crime, and must be recognised thus, because it increases the mortality and morbidity in the population due to several sexually transmitted diseases, leads to devastating effects on the family, produces social tensions of different kind and enhances the chances of sever crimes like murders and suicides. Severe punishment must, therefore, be given to the adulterers, both male and female. Lesser punishment must be reserved for the unmarried men and women indulging in sex. The persons involved in commercialisation of sex, drugs, and other addictions must also be given exemplary punishments. Apart from these crimes, thefts, robberies, bribery, gambling and other economic offences must also be included in the list of fundamental prohibitions and must be adequately punished.
It is of crucial importance that the rigorousness of punishment match the seriousness of crime; if it is less, it would encourage the criminals. It must be remembered that only a punishment equal to crime satisfies the sufferers, and if justice is denied to them, they often tend to seek alternative modes of revenge. Now the question arises: who should have the right to pardon? The propriety of justice demands that the right to pardon must rest neither with the judge nor with the head of state, but with the injured party (or his/her heirs). The duty of the court should be to establish the nature of crime, and involvement of the accused; following this, the judge should pronounce the maximum possible punishment that can be given under the given circumstances in accordance with the provisions of the law. The aggrieved party may then inform the court if it wants the maximum permissible punishment to be carried out or intends to dilute it, or has decided to altogether pardon the convict. If an accused is set free or given an inadequate punishment by the court, he may feel emboldened to commit another crime or further harass the aggrieved; if, on the other hand, his punishment, despite his crime having been established, is diluted or nullified by the benevolent intention of the aggrieved, he would feel extremely grateful towards them, and this positive gesture from their side may have a rectifying effect on his morals.
The time has come when the role of prisons in alleviating crimes should be properly scrutinised; it requires hardly any statistical data to prove that this system has been a total failure. Imprisonment reforms very few criminals and hardens most of them. It is also a great financial burden on the exchequer. In addition, the families of prisoners, too, suffer owing to the fact that they (prisoners) are in no position to earn, except whatever little remuneration they are given in jail for their hard physical work. Instead of being long, slow and ineffective, punishment must better be short, exemplary and effective, from the point of view of their ability to reform the convicts and also from that of the cost of the punishment.
There is one more area in the present legal system that needs scrutiny: the role of advocates. The advocacy for the client rather than justice, and for the falsehood rather than the truth, does not merely cause delay in judgment, it also adversely affects the view of the court. The lawyers, habitually, suppress and/or distort the facts to save the neck of their clients. As already said, the two partisan views do not, necessarily, lead to the truth. The court has no option but to rely on the evidences and arguments given by the two contending lawyers. Would it not be better to provide the judges with a staff of nonpartisan investigators, paid not by the clients but by the state? The legal specialists may thus be made to serve justice rather than private interests.
A just, swift and effective legal system is a must to ensure social order. A good legal system must be able to drastically lower the crime rate. This will encourage the duty-bound common people and the upright officers to fearlessly do their work. The economic exploitation of the weak would then surely receive a big jolt as the nexus between the criminals, politicians and the economic fundamentalists would not develop.
2. Universalisation of Religion
Attempts have been made by the economic fundamentalists to marginalise religion in society on account of the that it tends to have a sobering effect on consumerism. They know that, for continuous success in commercial pursuits, it is necessary to alter tastes of the people; religion, too, changes taste but, usually, in a direction opposite to theirs. It has been an unfortunate truth that the clerics, too, have distorted and misused religion for their personal gains. This has resulted in the emergence of strong sectarian inclinations among the religious minded. This has demarcated sections of society. People have been more interested in maintaining a particular culture (by following certain rituals and by associating for worldly advantages) than following the principles of religion. To maintain their supremacy in the community, the clerics have tended to be dogmatic and authoritarian.. Depravity and division among their ranks and their glaring failure in addressing to the problems of mankind have made them unpopular as well as irrelevant. It is this intolerance of the religious patriarchs that has been used by the economic fundamentalists to portray religion in shabby shades. Still, it can be said without doubt that religion has been, and will continue to be, a powerful force in human life; for reason often fails in guiding the human actions, and belief, often, comes to his rescue. If properly presented and followed religion has the potential to drastically alter human society for the better.
Before, however, bringing religion at the centre stage of organised human life, a general agreement on the following considerations would be of great value:
First though one religion may be more elaborate, systematic and developed than the other, all religions are good, at least, as far as they aim at guarding human beings against evils. Religiousness is, certainly, better than irreligiousness.
Second, it must be ensured that the religions of the world do not engage in hostilities, but compete, or better cooperate, to eradicate evils; they must root out sources of corruption, oppression, and exploitation. Religion has unparalleled ability to mobilise the masses against zulm; the economic and political tyrants fully realize this. Once religion appears on the scene in its true colours, the oppressors and exploiters would be seen scurrying for shelter.
Third, the universal appeal of religion must be availed in its true sprit, and tendencies to parochialise or commercialise it must be outrightly eschewed. God of religion is not the Lord of a specific area or