Today's news paper carried 3 Rape cases in Andhra alone. I don't how many such rapes are occurring in the remote parts of this country, where news paper coverage cannot reach
Probably very huge in number. All these people should be punished so severe so that no other person dares to do this
How ? We are unable to draft an anti rape bill. And the present one which is going to placed tomorrow in Lok sabha is very much diluted one.
There is no issue with law. The law is already strict enough. all that matters is effective crime law enforcement system. As regards dilution or modification in proposed law, government has to ensure largest unanimity.
True. But we can never expect unanimity in such a parliament comprising of diverse political and personal interests. So, naturally, the laws will become dilute to appease all the parties.
What is appeasement? No party is affected differently by strict or lenient law. There is diversity of view and hence wide consultation is made to arrive at a consensus. This is better otherwise a single party could in over zeal make ridiculously strict law. For example, there is proposal to make 'offense' of looking at woman or stalking 'unbailable'. In the first place mere looking at girl need not be made an offense, much less non bailable. Just imagine that a landlord goes to recover rent or electricity company person goes to disconnect defaulter's connection. In these circumstances, it would be easiest to make the allegation of 'staring' and 'stalking' and sending the innocent person to jail.
G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/
Today's news paper carried 3 Rape cases in Andhra alone. I don't how many such rapes are occurring in the remote parts of this country, where news paper coverage cannot reach
Probably very huge in number. All these people should be punished so severe so that no other person dares to do this
How ? We are unable to draft an anti rape bill. And the present one which is going to placed tomorrow in Lok sabha is very much diluted one.
There is no issue with law. The law is already strict enough. all that matters is effective crime law enforcement system. As regards dilution or modification in proposed law, government has to ensure largest unanimity.
True. But we can never expect unanimity in such a parliament comprising of diverse political and personal interests. So, naturally, the laws will become dilute to appease all the parties.
What is appeasement? No party is affected differently by strict or lenient law. There is diversity of view and hence wide consultation is made to arrive at a consensus. This is better otherwise a single party could in over zeal make ridiculously strict law. For example, there is proposal to make 'offense' of looking at woman or stalking 'unbailable'. In the first place mere looking at girl need not be made an offense, much less non bailable. Just imagine that a landlord goes to recover rent or electricity company person goes to disconnect defaulter's connection. In these circumstances, it would be easiest to make the allegation of 'staring' and 'stalking' and sending the innocent person to jail.
Even I am affraid whats going to happen if there becomes a law to punish a person for staring a girl as in that case there are chances that innocent people may too get some trouble as it may be misused. :evil: Recently I read in newspaper yesterday that a man was judged innocent by the court after the trials as a woman filed a case against him for raping her. But all eveidence proved that they had intercourse with consent of each other. :laugh:
What is appeasement? No party is affected differently by strict or lenient law. There is diversity of view and hence wide consultation is made to arrive at a consensus. This is better otherwise a single party could in over zeal make ridiculously strict law. For example, there is proposal to make 'offense' of looking at woman or stalking 'unbailable'. In the first place mere looking at girl need not be made an offense, much less non bailable. Just imagine that a landlord goes to recover rent or electricity company person goes to disconnect defaulter's connection. In these circumstances, it would be easiest to make the allegation of 'staring' and 'stalking' and sending the innocent person to jail.
Law need not be so severe to punish innocent people. The law that already exist should be strictly followed.
What is appeasement? No party is affected differently by strict or lenient law. There is diversity of view and hence wide consultation is made to arrive at a consensus. This is better otherwise a single party could in over zeal make ridiculously strict law. For example, there is proposal to make 'offense' of looking at woman or stalking 'unbailable'. In the first place mere looking at girl need not be made an offense, much less non bailable. Just imagine that a landlord goes to recover rent or electricity company person goes to disconnect defaulter's connection. In these circumstances, it would be easiest to make the allegation of 'staring' and 'stalking' and sending the innocent person to jail.
Law need not be so severe to punish innocent people. The law that already exist should be strictly followed.
Law should be severe. People should fear the law. Because of the loopholes in the law, even today violators are playing making the law a butt of laughter. Can you imagine this scenario in Arabic countries?
[
Law should be severe. People should fear the law. Because of the loopholes in the law, even today violators are playing making the law a butt of laughter. Can you imagine this scenario in Arabic countries?
Law that exist already is good enough to stop the crime. Only thing is that it is not implemented properly.Proper implementation of the law is what is required.
Innocent people should not fear the law. Only the people who are about to do a crime should fear.
[
Law should be severe. People should fear the law. Because of the loopholes in the law, even today violators are playing making the law a butt of laughter. Can you imagine this scenario in Arabic countries?
Law that exist already is good enough to stop the crime. Only thing is that it is not implemented properly.Proper implementation of the law is what is required.
Innocent people should not fear the law. Only the people who are about to do a crime should fear.
Before that the law should take care of the possible ambiguities. What is voyeurism, what is stalking? They are not well defined. And there is a possibility of abusing as in the case of anti-dowry law
[
Law should be severe. People should fear the law. Because of the loopholes in the law, even today violators are playing making the law a butt of laughter. Can you imagine this scenario in Arabic countries?
Law that exist already is good enough to stop the crime. Only thing is that it is not implemented properly.Proper implementation of the law is what is required.
Innocent people should not fear the law. Only the people who are about to do a crime should fear.
Before that the law should take care of the possible ambiguities. What is voyeurism, what is stalking? They are not well defined. And there is a possibility of abusing as in the case of anti-dowry law
I agree to this that the law should be well defined so that there are no loopholes.
[
Law should be severe. People should fear the law. Because of the loopholes in the law, even today violators are playing making the law a butt of laughter. Can you imagine this scenario in Arabic countries?
Law that exist already is good enough to stop the crime. Only thing is that it is not implemented properly.Proper implementation of the law is what is required.
Innocent people should not fear the law. Only the people who are about to do a crime should fear.
Before that the law should take care of the possible ambiguities. What is voyeurism, what is stalking? They are not well defined. And there is a possibility of abusing as in the case of anti-dowry law
I agree to this that the law should be well defined so that there are no loopholes.
Very smart violators read in between the lines. Yeats ago the great economic offender Haridas Mundra, when caught, said, "What I did was i used the loopholes in the law." Government should learn lessons from the past debacles.
Rapists are usually not sex maniacs or act in spur of moment. They are not comparable to economic offenders. Hardly anyone will look for loophole in law to commit a crime like rape. If some one is so sane as to look for loopholes, he will not rape.
secondly, no law can be free from loopholes. If you wish 100% guarantee against rape, you have only one option and that is to restrict women to homes or entirely secluded places, observe veil, no coeducation, exclusive transport for women only, separate sections for women workers only. I wonder if the Finance Minister had this in mind while declaring an all women bank.
G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/
Rapists are usually not sex maniacs or act in spur of moment. They are not comparable to economic offenders. Hardly anyone will look for loophole in law to commit a crime like rape. If some one is so sane as to look for loopholes, he will not rape.
secondly, no law can be free from loopholes. If you wish 100% guarantee against rape, you have only one option and that is to restrict women to homes or entirely secluded places, observe veil, no coeducation, exclusive transport for women only, separate sections for women workers only. I wonder if the Finance Minister had this in mind while declaring an all women bank.
We can arrive at a 100% fool proof law over a period. Urgency will not serve the problem. A Law framed in haste keeping other interests in view will create more problems later. In this regard, wise men from different walks of life should be consulted.
What i say is it all takes time. But the outcome will be a good .
