Does your blood boil after hearing this???????

Leaving my work aside, I would like to first start this discussion to ask you a very important thing.
The lawyer of the four accused in the 16/12 gang rape case said that he does not welcome the decision of hanging his clients. This is alright. But what he said next was horrifying. He said that he would not appeal in the higher court if no such crime takes place in India or Delhi again. and that the Delhi court is under the government pressure Isn't that a stupid and irresponsible statement from a lawyer? Everyone know the four are accused of various crimes and on what basis was the lawyer going to defend and still advocate them? ALL STUPIDITY??

This is a standard format of any lawyer who loses his case.Its waste of time to give a hearing to such comments. Heartening thing is all the four got death.

And I don't think the higher courts will overrule the verdict of the district court. The capital punishment is going to stay.

Every death sentence needs confirmation by High Court. The Delhi police and the Forensic experts have done their job well and successfully prosecuted. It is amply proved that the four convicts had used extreme cruelty in gang rape and killing. Death sentence is appropriate in the circumstances and there is no reason why High Court would not confirm this. This is rarest of rarest case justifying death penalty. However, the convicts have the right to defend themselves through their advocates in High Court.
I also view that the convicts are too poor to get good lawyers. They may not be able to go to supreme Court level.

As regards judicial and criminal law, the chapter appears closed. But we need consider why the relatively poorer sections indulge in such blatant crimes. This is more for sociologists and psychologists to consider.

I too think that the chapter now looks closed, no matter however high profile lawyer fights the case. If this is the rareest of the rare case, then the high court or even the supreme court won't overrule the death penalty.

The reason for people's skepticism is, there were several incidents in the past in which criminals escaped the net.

One in this case too has successfully escaped it because of technical reasons ( juvenile) which really makes your blood boil...He should have been given at least a life sentence !

The defense also tried to establish that in the remaining four there are two young. And with all said and done, its not the end. A beginning only. Defense is going for an appeal to higher courts. The criminals should not have been given a chance to further appeal.

You cannot refuse opportunity for appeal. But it appears that the convicts are too poor to afford competent lawyers.

Yes we cannot refuse lawful procedure but it should be on a faster basis, they should not die a slow death while waiting for ultimate.

It is right, ours judicial procedure will give the convicts the time to think back and repent as it is also necessary as one should remember that we cannot create life, so we cannot destroy it, even in this mortal land, Lord Krishna have to die in order to leave this earth. They should feel the death in each moment till they alive and that would be a perfect satisfaction for her to whom they have treated like anything.

Longer the wait, more the chances of acquittal

But I don't think there are any chances of acquittal in this case even if the accused (and the guilty) appeal in the high court. The original decision will stand.

We may be rightly angry but histrionics too are a part of the art and craft of people belonging to this profession. I have a sneaking suspicion that this man was loving every inch of publicity for his theatrical conduct. Whether he should have taken up this lost case is basically a question of morality which is outside the realm of legality. For example, thieving to feed a hungry person may be moral but not legal!! As for morality to be practiced by lawyers why don't we say a word about Ram Jethmalani who had made a habit of appearing for all the notorious criminals and politician of dubious characters!!! :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

We may be rightly angry but histrionics too are a part of the art and craft of people belonging to this profession. I have a sneaking suspicion that this man was loving every inch of publicity for his theatrical conduct. Whether he should have taken up this lost case is basically a question of morality which is outside the realm of legality. For example, thieving to feed a hungry person may be moral but not legal!! As for morality to be practiced by lawyers why don't we say a word about Ram Jethmalani who had made a habit of appearing for all the notorious criminals and politician of dubious characters!!! :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

We cannot validly oppose any advocate appearing for an accused. In fact, if one cannot get advocate, court provides legal assistance. A case cannot be proceeded unless the accused get reasonable opportunity to defend. But what is astonishing and regrettable is the behavior of defence counsel. Yesterday he was on TV defending his statement that if his sister or daughter indulged in premarital sex or moved with boy friend, he would burn her alive. How the advocate manages his family is his concern.

We may be rightly angry but histrionics too are a part of the art and craft of people belonging to this profession. I have a sneaking suspicion that this man was loving every inch of publicity for his theatrical conduct. Whether he should have taken up this lost case is basically a question of morality which is outside the realm of legality. For example, thieving to feed a hungry person may be moral but not legal!! As for morality to be practiced by lawyers why don't we say a word about Ram Jethmalani who had made a habit of appearing for all the notorious criminals and politician of dubious characters!!! :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

We cannot validly oppose any advocate appearing for an accused. In fact, if one cannot get advocate, court provides legal assistance. A case cannot be proceeded unless the accused get reasonable opportunity to defend. But what is astonishing and regrettable is the behavior of defence counsel. Yesterday he was on TV defending his statement that if his sister or daughter indulged in premarital sex or moved with boy friend, he would burn her alive. How the advocate manages his family is his concern.

Can he be charged for making such a statement in public? It is a serious issue that demands a prosecution.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

We may be rightly angry but histrionics too are a part of the art and craft of people belonging to this profession. I have a sneaking suspicion that this man was loving every inch of publicity for his theatrical conduct. Whether he should have taken up this lost case is basically a question of morality which is outside the realm of legality. For example, thieving to feed a hungry person may be moral but not legal!! As for morality to be practiced by lawyers why don't we say a word about Ram Jethmalani who had made a habit of appearing for all the notorious criminals and politician of dubious characters!!! :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

We cannot validly oppose any advocate appearing for an accused. In fact, if one cannot get advocate, court provides legal assistance. A case cannot be proceeded unless the accused get reasonable opportunity to defend. But what is astonishing and regrettable is the behavior of defence counsel. Yesterday he was on TV defending his statement that if his sister or daughter indulged in premarital sex or moved with boy friend, he would burn her alive. How the advocate manages his family is his concern.

Can he be charged for making such a statement in public? It is a serious issue that demands a prosecution.

His views are orthodox and many in society resemble these. He cannot be sued for his views. But he can be booked for contempt of court. His views on dealing with sister or daughter indulging in pre marital affairs are certainly unlawful. However, his sister/ daughter are not yet found by him indulging in pre marital affairs and so he has no occasion to burn them alive Hence no case.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

Why is it late? There are three months for any party to appeal in a high court. Does‘t the same apply in this case too? I will really like to see what action does the Bar Council take now.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

Why is it late? There are three months for any party to appeal in a high court. Does‘t the same apply in this case too? I will really like to see what action does the Bar Council take now.

I think contempt of court is an action taken by concerned judge immediately, since the judge let it go so no more action against lawyer but bar council can still take action against him.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

Why is it late? There are three months for any party to appeal in a high court. Does‘t the same apply in this case too? I will really like to see what action does the Bar Council take now.

I think contempt of court is an action taken by concerned judge immediately, since the judge let it go so no more action against lawyer but bar council can still take action against him.

Next day he said that if my daughter spend time with boy friends in night I will burn her. Who give him right to burn his daughters. He also added other parents also follow me.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

Why is it late? There are three months for any party to appeal in a high court. Does‘t the same apply in this case too? I will really like to see what action does the Bar Council take now.

I think contempt of court is an action taken by concerned judge immediately, since the judge let it go so no more action against lawyer but bar council can still take action against him.

Next day he said that if my daughter spend time with boy friends in night I will burn her. Who give him right to burn his daughters. He also added other parents also follow me.

In that case, that guy seriously needs some psychological treatment. He is openly saying all those things....It's the first time I am hearing a lawyer say that.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude![/quote

I agree. But entry to a profession including law is not affected by ideological leaning of a man. we may disagree with the advocate but his views do not disqualify him for the profession.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

Had he said that off record and off camera, no one would have known that. But I am sure he has invited trouble by saying this in the open.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

Exactly my thoughts ! You have to be responsible when you make such statements esp when it involves a case that has been so gruesome and made everyone angry...The lawyer is insinuating that Nirbhaya was such a girl who went out with her boyfriend at night and may be had pre marital sex etc and that she deserved what she got...Thats what he is trying to say !

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

Exactly my thoughts ! You have to be responsible when you make such statements esp when it involves a case that has been so gruesome and made everyone angry...The lawyer is insinuating that Nirbhaya was such a girl who went out with her boyfriend at night and may be had pre marital sex etc and that she deserved what she got...Thats what he is trying to say !

That is pretty much what he is insinuating! His statement is nothing but a typically male chauvinistic attitude that is trying depress women more and more! even though he is a lawyer of those rapists, he still has no rights to make such horrible comments about the victim!