The Power of Public opinion

[S.A.M.]

Jessica Lall was a model in New Delhi who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead on April 29, 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, a.k.a. Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy and powerful Congress politician in Haryana, as the murderer. The surname "Lall" is sometimes spelled "Lal" in the media.

In the ensuing trial over seven years, inadequacies in the investigation, shoddy prosecution, and possible judicial lapses led to Manu Sharma and a number of others being acquitted on February 21, 2006.


In the immense uproar that followed, hundreds of thousands of people e-mailed and SMS-ed their outrage on petitions forwarded by media channels and newspapers to the President and others seeking remedies for the alleged miscarriage of justice. A poll conducted by the newspaper Hindustan Times showed that on a scale of 1 to 10, the public's faith in law enforcement in India was about 2.7.

Public pressure built up with newspapers splashing headlines such as "No one killed Jessica", and TV channels running SMS polls. Models, fashion designers, friends, relatives and others have held candle-light vigils at India Gate in New Delhi to protest the injustice of it all.

Surender Sharma, the police inspector responsible for the investigation, was transferred from the plum Hauz Khas position to a bureaucratic post. The police have also launched an inquiry against the possibly deliberate ineptness of their own earlier investigation.

On April 18, 2006, the a division bench comprising Justice Manmohan Sareen and Justice J M Malik released Manu Sharma on Rs 1 Lakh (USD 2000) bail[2]. They also pulled up the Delhi Police and urged them to ensure minimal delays in the re-trial process.

Following intense media pressure, the prosecution appealed (a rare measure) and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings over 25 days. The lower court judgment was found faulty in law, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Jessica Lall. He was sentenced to life on December 20, 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lal

 

[Tiassa]

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (click here)​

It is always a difficult thing when Justice goes awry. To use a classic example, I'm pretty sure OJ Simpson is guilty, but I'm glad the trial turned out the way it did, and I object to the $33 million judgment against him. (To the other, though, he should either challenge or pay it.)

It is difficult to acknowledge, but I do protest the principle of second prosecution in this case.

Perhaps ... well, I do not understand the dynamics of Indian political and legal affairs well enough to suggest a solution, but philosophically, it would be better to develop laws that function within constraints of principle than to violate certain principles. Such a change is long and difficult, and I wouldn't know where to begin in India. I don't know enough about the place or the people.

 

[S.A.M.]

We do not have double jeopardy.

If the prosecution believes a person found innocent must be tried again, its usually because they have good reason for that belief. Such appeals are very rare and only entertained at the discretion of the judge.
India abandoned trial by jury some time ago. Does not deter public opinion however.

Jury trials were abolished by the government of India in 1960 on the grounds they would be susceptible to media and public influence. This decision was based on an 8:1 acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was overturned by higher courts, on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge.

 

[Tiassa]

May the people of India do better by such Justice than the heritage that brought about our American condition.

 

[Baron Max]

Geez, Sam, are you saying or implying that there are some things in India that's not perfect and wonderful and special and glorious??? Surely not!!

Oh, wait, I know ....it's because of the rotten American influence, right?!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

India abandoned trial by jury some time ago. Does not deter public opinion however.

Pulbic opinion most often sucks giant donkey dick! The public rarely knows what the hell is going on ...even within their own sight and hearing. I trust public opinion about as well as I can hold it in my hands.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Geez, Sam, are you saying or implying that there are some things in India that's not perfect and wonderful and special and glorious??? Surely not!!

Oh, wait, I know ....it's because of the rotten American influence, right?!

Baron Max

No we're still going through trial and error in government. Initially, post Independence 60 years ago, we adopted the then system which was already in place at almost all levels of government, which was the British system, except for the system of reservations for minorities. Also our primary concern was to build a unified country inspite of the extensive diversity in language, ethnicity and culture. We still have gaps in those (Kashmir, Jharkand). On the whole though it has been successful. After that our next five year development plans focused on economic growth and education and we have been making rapid strides in both and hope to become fully self sufficient in all areas of technology. We do have several large gaps on some social issues, though changes are rapidly falling into place, with a relatively smooth transition. So politics and justice has been on the back burner, though not completely, with the evolution of a multiparty system defined by public opinion and elimination of trial by jury.

I would say American influence in India is not an important consideration. Historically, we have been, ideologically, on the opposite side (Cold war, Pakistan, Palestine).

Public opinion most often sucks giant donkey dick! The public rarely knows what the hell is going on ...even within their own sight and hearing. I trust public opinion about as well as I can hold it in my hands.

Baron Max

You speak of the US. Public opinion is very important in India. Our system of government is based on proportional representation through the Single Transferable Vote.

 

[Baron Max]

You speak of the US. Public opinion is very important in India.

Okay ...does the public in India actually know more about what's going on in the world than the American public? And can it be that information sources in India are completely unbias, thus public knowledge sources can be trusted explicitly and without question?

I know that many, many areas of India don't even have electricity, so how can they know so much about what's going on in the world? Or are you only speaking of the rich people of India?

I read that article on STV, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with "public opinion" and it's importance? The STV seems to be only for electing officials ...but once they're elected, how does STV play any role? And how is that remotely connected to public opinion? Can you enlighten me?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Okay ...does the public in India actually know more about what's going on in the world than the American public? And can it be that information sources in India are completely unbias, thus public knowledge sources can be trusted explicitly and without question?

You will very rarely meet an Indian who does not have an opinion on anything going around in the world, whether it is by direct knowledge of the facts or by extrapolation to a historical or political event/person.

Someone (I forget who) once said: Any thought or opinion being expressed in the world at any time will have a corresponding counterpart in India.

There is no such thing as an unbiased media. However there is such a thing as diverse media and discussion. I believe the diversity in media in India, both pro and anti-establishment as well as moderate, plus the involvement of people at all levels of society in the government (there are seats reserved for scientists, artists and minorities in Parliament) ensures proportional representation of all points of view.

I know that many, many areas of India don't even have electricity, so how can they know so much about what's going on in the world? Or are you only speaking of the rich people of India?

Even the poorest villages in India have a Panchayat.

The Panchayat (पंचायत in Devanagiri) is an Indian political system which groups five ("panch") villages in a quincunx (four peripheral villages around a central one).

Panchayat also refers to a council of elected members taking decisions on issues key to a village's social, cultural and economic life: thus, a panchayat is also a village's body of elected representatives. The council leader is named sarpanch in Hindi, and each member is a panch. The panchayat acts as a conduit between the local government and the people. Decisions are taken by a majority vote (Bahumat). It is said that in such a system, each villager can voice his opinion in the governance of his village.[citation needed] Decisions are taken without lengthy legal procedures and the process remains for the most part transparent.

The Panchayat is an excellent forum for discussion. It explores national and international news, the political and social changes, social issues in the villages and ensures problem solving by people who are not only directly involved in the issues and but are also familiar with all the parties involved. They also have to continue to live together and hence are motivated to bring about a fair resolution (since they are elected).

I read that article on STV, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with "public opinion" and it's importance? The STV seems to be only for electing officials ...but once they're elected, how does STV play any role? And how is that remotely connected to public opinion? Can you enlighten me

?

The single transferable vote means every vote counts. So if a majority of people vote for or against a candidate, it affects the party that comes into power. In the event of people being dissatisfied with all parties the votes get divided and no single party is able to get the minimum number of seats to form the House of People and hence the Parliament and parties are forced to form coalitions with different parties which limits the damage they can do. Media, demonstrations and public outcry against a party/member of parliament can be (and are frequently) used by the opposition party or a member of the party itself (who has lost faith in the individual or party) to pass a vote of no-confidence.

This will bring the issue to the table and both houses will debate on the issue. Since the system is multi party and a majority party leads, it is possible to have an overwhelmingly larger opposition made up of several other parties.

If the individual minister loses the no-confidence vote, he will be asked to resign. If the party in power loses it, the parliament will be dissolved by the President. This is a rare occurrence but it has happened (Vajpayee 1996). What it does do is keep the government transparent and the public aware of what is happening (all Parliamentary proceedings are televised and also open to the public).


Plus there are other advantages to STV:

STV differs from all other Proportional Representation systems in actual use in that candidates of one party will be elected on transfers from voters for other parties. Hence, the use of STV may reduce the role of political parties in the electoral process and corresponding partisanship in the resulting government. Unlike proportional representation systems employing party lists, voters in STV are not explicitly constrained by parties even when they do exist; voters may ignore candidate party labels and mix their preferred candidate rankings between parties. Similarly, candidates may achieve electoral success by obtaining a quota of voters not generally within their own party, perhaps by winning transfers from moderates or by championing a specific issue contrary to party doctrine. STV advocates boast that, by requiring a candidate to appeal to the supporters of other candidates for their second and further preferences, it reduces adversarial confrontation, and indeed, gives a substantial advantage to candidates who broaden their appeal by being not only collegial but as open-minded and flexible in their principles as they can manage.

Successful campaign strategy in STV elections may differ significantly from other voting systems. In particular, individual candidates in STV have little incentive for negative campaign advertising, as reducing a particular opponent's ranking among voters does not necessarily elevate one's own; if negative campaigning is seen as distasteful by the voters, the practice may even prove harmful to the attacking candidate. Conversely, in order to avoid elimination in early counting rounds by having too few first place votes, candidates have a significant incentive to convince voters to rank them explicitly first as their top preference, rather than merely higher. This incentive to attain top preferences, in turn, may lead to a strategy of candidates placing greater importance on a core group of supporters. Avoiding early elimination, however, is usually not enough to win election, as a candidate must still subsequently win enough votes on transfers to meet the quota; consequently, strategies which sacrifice wide secondary support in favor of primary support amidst a core group may ultimately fail unless the group is particularly large.

There are also tactical considerations for political parties in the number of candidates they stand in an election where full ballots are not required. Standing too few candidates may result in all of them being elected in the early stages, and votes being transferred to candidates of other parties. Standing too many candidates might result in first-preference votes being spread too thinly amongst them, and consequently several potential winners with broad second-preference appeal may be eliminated before others are elected and their second-preference votes distributed. This effect is amplified when voters do not stick tightly to their preferred party's candidates.

 

[S.A.M.]

Police sacked over India killings

Six Indian policemen have been sacked for alleged incompetence over the murders of 17 young women and children in a suburb of the capital, Delhi.

Three senior officers have also been suspended, officials say.

The BBC's Anu Anand in Delhi says that the controversy is the latest example of public pressure and intense media scrutiny forcing Indian officials to act.

Officials say that those accused of incompetence will be given an opportunity to explain their case, after which a panel will decide on further action.

On Monday, there was rioting around what the press has begun to refer to as the Noida "house of horrors", with police being pelted with stones.

Legal representation

The Uttar Pradesh state government is under mounting pressure over the murders.

It has more than doubled compensation for victims' families to 500,000 rupees (more than $11,000) after angry relatives rejected the initial offer.

On Wednesday India's Supreme Court rejected calls for the case be transferred from the police to a team of federal investigators.

The government launched its own investigation, which will report in two weeks.

 

[Prince_James]

SamCDKey:

Judges rule in cases only?

Hmmm. Isn't there massive corruption?

I imagine a wealthy man can easily buy out any judge he wants.

 

[S.A.M.]

SamCDKey:

Judges rule in cases only?

Hmmm. Isn't there massive corruption?

I imagine a wealthy man can easily buy out any judge he wants.

Thats what the guy in the Jessica Lall case thought (see OP).

And no, there is not "massive corruption", since the media is very active. But yes there is corruption.

 

[Baron Max]

And no, there is not "massive corruption", since the media is very active. But yes there is corruption.

The media can't be bought off? If so, then they must be another group of Mother Theresa's, huh?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

The media can't be bought off? If so, then they must be another group of Mother Theresa's, huh?

Baron Max

You're thinking of the US again.

I'm sure the media can be bought off but ALL of them, simultaneously?

http://in.dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/By_Region/Countries/India/Complete_List/

 

[one_raven]

Everyone I have ever known from India says that the political and justice system is appalingly corrupt.
People that have moved from India to the US are relieved that the system here is so clean compared to India (and we certainly have a corrupt system).

According to the people I talk to, the criminal justice system in India is corrupt to the piont that police murdering people will usually not get a second glance.
All judges, police and politicans are for sale, and it is not even hidden.
The article you posted seems to confirm that.
Why would he have been indicted in the first place?

It seems to me that the only reason people were so upset, pathetically it is the same in the US, was because she was a pretty young model.
The thousands of other stories of people who were summarily executed and no one was convicted, fall on deaf ears, because no one but the family of the dead gives a shit (or thinks they can do anything about it).

Yes, according to everyone else I have ever spoken to from different walks of life in India, there most certainly is massive corruption throughout every level of government in India.

 

[Baron Max]

Yes, according to everyone else I have ever spoken to from different walks of life in India, there most certainly is massive corruption throughout every level of government in India.

Don't tell Sam that ....she thinks India is the glorious model for utopia and is without fault, and never has been. In fact, to Sam, only the US has any faults ....and in fact, he contention is that any faults in the world are caused by the US anyway! ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Everyone I have ever known from India says that the political and justice system is appalingly corrupt.
People that have moved from India to the US are relieved that the system here is so clean compared to India (and we certainly have a corrupt system).

According to the people I talk to, the criminal justice system in India is corrupt to the piont that police murdering people will usually not get a second glance.
All judges, police and politicans are for sale, and it is not even hidden.
The article you posted seems to confirm that.
Why would he have been indicted in the first place?

Thats what I used to think too, but I now believe that corruption is more openly reviled in India and is discussed more freely than in other places. This makes it more "visible".

An overactive higher judiciary has confused judicial oversight with taking over governance, which has led to ineptitude and corruption in the lower judiciary. This has led to the "trial by media" which has become so common in India.

Moreover, the lower judiciary is under stress and under resourced which leads to over work and vulnerability to corruption. The high courts and supreme courts though are not, so issues which move to the higher judiciary are not subject to the same limitations.

It seems to me that the only reason people were so upset, pathetically it is the same in the US, was because she was a pretty young model.
The thousands of other stories of people who were summarily executed and no one was convicted, fall on deaf ears, because no one but the family of the dead gives a shit (or thinks they can do anything about it).

On the contrary, a barmaid is very low on the social scale when compared to the son of a politician. Without public outcry, there would have been no justice.

Yes, according to everyone else I have ever spoken to from different walks of life in India, there most certainly is massive corruption throughout every level of government in India.

While Indian laws are well-intentioned, there is a general perception among the population that one can get away with any crime due to various flaws in the execution.

More than Indian Law, it is perhaps the strong tradition of a free press in India that serves its citizens better.

So don't well connected people get away with murder in the West? And doesn't the media play a role in bringing about justice in such cases?

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't tell Sam that ....she thinks India is the glorious model for utopia and is without fault, and never has been. In fact, to Sam, only the US has any faults ....and in fact, he contention is that any faults in the world are caused by the US anyway! ...LOL!

Baron Max

I distinctly remember informing you that US political influence in India is minimal.

 

[one_raven]

On the contrary, a barmaid is very low on the social scale when compared to the son of a politician.

True, but she is still a pretty young model.
He isn't.
If it was a public outcry, it would be from the general public, who would favor a pretty, young model over a corrupt son of a politician - their social status would not matter.
His social status is what got him indicted in the first place.

So don't well connected people get away with murder in the West? And doesn't the media play a role in bringing about justice in such cases?

Of course they do, and sometimes it does.
What is your point?

As I said, the justice system here IS corrupt.
You were the one who was saying that there is not "massive corruption" in India.
Stating that people are corrupt here doesn't make your case at all.

Besides, like I said, the Indians I have known who moved here breathed a sigh of relief when they found out how fair and clean the justice system is here compared to the way it is in India.
The Indians I know have a hearty laugh at my expense when I complain of the corruption and injustice in the US system.
The talk to me as if I am a child complaining about how difficult it was to clean my room to my father who just got home from work in the coal mines.

I am no champion of the american justice or political system, but those I know who have lived with both systems greatly prefer this one.

 

[S.A.M.]

True, but she is still a pretty young model.
He isn't.
If it was a public outcry, it would be from the general public, who would favor a pretty, young model over a corrupt son of a politician - their social status would not matter.
His social status is what got him indicted in the first place.

I think the outcry was more to do with the fact that he was a politicians son than she was a model. Supporting people mererly for their looks is not an Indian thing. We've had people crying out against popular celebrities who have misused the justice system

Of course they do, and sometimes it does.
What is your point?

As I said, the justice system here IS corrupt.
You were the one who was saying that there is not "massive corruption" in India.
Stating that people are corrupt here doesn't make your case at all.

Besides, like I said, the Indians I have known who moved here breathed a sigh of relief when they found out how fair and clean the justice system is here compared to the way it is in India.
The Indians I know have a hearty laugh at my expense when I complain of the corruption and injustice in the US system.
The talk to me as if I am a child complaining about how difficult it was to clean my room to my father who just got home from work in the coal mines.

I am no champion of the american justice or political system, but those I know who have lived with both systems greatly prefer this one.

I wonder how many based their opinions on actual experience. Like I said, it is discussed to a much greater extent there, while here, inequalities in the justice system are rarely addressed as a matter of casual conversation.