Hitskin.comThis is a Hitskin.com skin preview
Install the skin • Return to the skin page
Home
Latest imagesWhy all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
+4
yogi
truthbetold
FluteHolder
Idéfix
8 posters
Page 1 of 1
Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Idéfix Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:30 pm
I don't understand the hue and cry about pardoning Sanjay Dutt. The guy was awarded the minimum sentence required by a law that he agrees that he violated. He not only had his day in court, but he also went through an appeals process and the highest court of the land has confirmed his sentence. I read a report of Mark Katju's statement asking the governor to pardon him. As often, Markji's statement is all over the place. Here is a quick summary of why Markji's argument makes no sense.
I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
| Markji's argument | Comment |
| Sanjay Dutt was not convicted of a role in terrorism. | Non sequitur. He was not sentenced for terrorism; he was sentenced for violating the Arms Act. |
| Sanjay's offense was less than a murder and at one time, Nanavati, a murderer, was pardoned. | Non sequitur. Sanjay was not sentenced for murder. He was given the least possible sentence for a crime that he agrees he committed. |
| It is an extenuating circumstance that the crime was committed 20 years ago. | If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are convicted and sentenced several years after they commit crimes. |
| Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he had to go to court often. | Really? If he didn't want to go to court often, he should not have committed the crime! |
| Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he could not get bank loans. | The law does not specify the punishment for his crime as "denial of bank loans," it specifies imprisonment. |
| Sanjay is married and has two children. | If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are married and have children. |
| Sanjay was imprisoned for 18 months. | Yes, and that is why he doesn't have to spend five years in prison now. His sentence accounts for the time he already spent in jail. |
| Sanjay's parents did good deeds. | Non sequitur. The actions of the parents have nothing to do with the crimes of the child. |
I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Guest Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:43 pm
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/this-plot-needs-a-new-ending/article4548129.ece
Guest- Guest
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Guest Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:46 pm
trofimov wrote:I don't understand the hue and cry about pardoning Sanjay Dutt. The guy was awarded the minimum sentence required by a law that he agrees that he violated. He not only had his day in court, but he also went through an appeals process and the highest court of the land has confirmed his sentence. I read a report of Mark Katju's statement asking the governor to pardon him. As often, Markji's statement is all over the place. Here is a quick summary of why Markji's argument makes no sense.
Markji's argument Comment Sanjay Dutt was not convicted of a role in terrorism. Non sequitur. He was not sentenced for terrorism; he was sentenced for violating the Arms Act. Sanjay's offense was less than a murder and at one time, Nanavati, a murderer, was pardoned. Non sequitur. Sanjay was not sentenced for murder. He was given the least possible sentence for a crime that he agrees he committed. It is an extenuating circumstance that the crime was committed 20 years ago. If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are convicted and sentenced several years after they commit crimes. Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he had to go to court often. Really? If he didn't want to go to court often, he should not have committed the crime! Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he could not get bank loans. The law does not specify the punishment for his crime as "denial of bank loans," it specifies imprisonment. Sanjay is married and has two children. If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are married and have children. Sanjay was imprisoned for 18 months. Yes, and that is why he doesn't have to spend five years in prison now. His sentence accounts for the time he already spent in jail. Sanjay's parents did good deeds. Non sequitur. The actions of the parents have nothing to do with the crimes of the child.
I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
You are confusing pardon proceedings with judicial proceedings. A very wide latitude is given in pardon proceedings and it is permissible to use arguments in pardon proceedings which would not pass muster in a judicial proceeding.
Guest- Guest
blog-why-terrorist-sanjay-dutt-should-not-be-pardoned
by FluteHolder Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:48 pm
Rashmun wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/this-plot-needs-a-new-ending/article4548129.ece
https://such.forumotion.com/t11923-blog-why-errorist-sanjay-dutt-should-not-be-pardoned
FluteHolder- Posts : 2355
Join date : 2011-06-03
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Guest Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:51 pm
FluteHolder wrote:Rashmun wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/this-plot-needs-a-new-ending/article4548129.ece
https://such.forumotion.com/t11923-blog-why-errorist-sanjay-dutt-should-not-be-pardoned
He has already spent eighteen months in jail. It is not that he is getting away scott free if he were to be pardoned.
Guest- Guest
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Idéfix Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:52 pm
Ha! I should have seen that post earlier, would have saved me some typing.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Guest Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:55 pm
Good and very sensible counter arguments. Can't believe a judge can be so dumb.
Guest- Guest
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Guest Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:06 pm
When the law says nothing done in the exercise of the right of private defence is an offence, it would be a travesty of justice to send Sanjay Dutt to jail
In Paragraph 70 of its judgment in Sanjay Dutt’s appeal, the Supreme Court has observed thus: “In the case of Sanjay Dutt, the Designated Court took a view on the basis of his own confession that the weapons were not acquired for any terrorist activity but they were acquired for self-defence, therefore, acquittal was recorded in respect of charge under Section 5 of TADA. We fully agree with the same.”
Not punishable
Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code provides: “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.” Section 40 of the IPC provides that Chapter 4 of the code is applicable to not only offences punishable under IPC but also to offences punishable under other special laws like the Arms Act, 1949. Section 96, which has been extracted above, is in chapter 4 of the IPC. It is thus clear that if the weapons for the possession of which Sanjay Dutt has been convicted under the Arms Act had been acquired for self-defence, their possession without a licence would not, on the findings of the Supreme Court, in itself constitute a punishable offence.
This important aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Supreme Court and constitutes a clear error of law on the face of the judgment itself. A review of the judgment on this ground would clearly lie and should be allowed by the same bench of the Supreme Court to which it will go.
However, generally, the judges of the Supreme Court hesitate to accept that they have made a mistake even when they have made one. It is only really great and eminent judges who do not hesitate in accepting their own mistake because it is human to err.
In any case, even if the Bench rejects the review application, it would be open to Sanjay Dutt to file a curative petition, which right was evolved by the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rupa Hurra’s case (2002 (4) SCC 388).
This curative petition can be filed only after the remedy of a review petition has been availed of and has been unsuccessful. According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hurra’s case, such a petition will not go before the same bench which had decided Sanjay Dutt’s case but will go before a larger bench which will have to include not only the Chief Justice of India but also the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice. It is this larger bench that will have to decide the curative petition. There is no reason to feel that when this new bench decides this question of law, which is so clear, it will not set aside the conviction and sentence of Sanjay Dutt.
The evidence in the case fully establishes that well before the Bombay blasts (12/03/1993), for which the entire trial had taken place, there had been serious riots in Bombay (December 1992-January 1993). Subsequent to the demolition of the Babri Masjid (06/12/1992), Muslims of Bombay were being targeted by the Shiv Sena and its mobs. The evidence further shows that Sanjay Dutt’s father, Sunil Dutt, and the whole family was helping to protect innocent Muslims being targeted by the Shiv Sena mobs. This had also occasioned an attack on Sunil Dutt himself (January 1993) for which he had written to the authorities.
Under real threat
It was evident that there was a clear danger of a mob attack on Sanjay Dutt and his family, including his parents. An attack by such a mob could not have been deterred except by the threat of an automatic weapon and it was for this very reason that Sanjay Dutt had agreed to acquire the automatic weapon, namely, the AK-56 Rifle (in mid-January 1993). It is also clear that no private person is ever granted a licence for acquiring an automatic weapon and therefore the only possible way for Sanjay Dutt to protect his family against a mob attack was to acquire the automatic weapon through alternative channels, so long as the purpose of acquiring this automatic weapon was to defend his family from a mob attack, as both the designated court and the Supreme Court clearly found on the evidence recorded. This act of acquiring the possession of the automatic weapon would not constitute the offence as shown above from the relevant provisions of the IPC.
The relevant facts and circumstances in which Sanjay Dutt had to acquire the automatic weapon have been noticed in paragraph 74 of the judgment which is reproduced herein below:
“It was also contended from the side of the appellant that in the year 1992-93, the appellant and his family members were involved in helping people residing in riot affected areas, more particularly, Behrampada, predominantly having a Muslim population which was objectionable to a certain group of persons who were of the opinion that the Dutt family was sympathisers of only the Muslim community. In fact, this led to an attack on Sunil Dutt in January 1993, as well as threatening phone calls were being received at their residence, including threats to the family members being killed as well as the sisters of the appellant being kidnapped and raped. This led to a great and serious apprehension that an attack could be perpetrated upon the Dutt family in view of the fact that Shri Sunil Dutt had already been attacked. This apprehension was clearly set out in the letter of Shri Sunil Dutt to the then DCP of Zone VII dated 06.01.1993, wherein he asked for enhancing security arrangements further and for more police protection at his house as deposed by PW-219 in this case.”
It was in view of these circumstances that the Supreme Court reduced the sentence given to Sanjay Dutt from six years to five years as five years was the minimum prescribed term under Section 25(1A) for being in possession of an automatic weapon.
Honourable person
It is clear from the above facts that Sanjay Dutt is an honourable person who according to the Supreme Court had made a voluntary confession setting out all the facts and circumstances in which he had acquired the automatic weapon, the confession which the Supreme Court found to be voluntary and true and his conviction is also based on his own voluntary and truthful confession.
It would be a travesty of justice if such a person has to go to jail now merely because an important provision of law has been overlooked by the Supreme Court. Either the Supreme Court in a review or curative petition or any other constitutional authority which is entitled to grant him relief must do justice by making an order so that an honourable person like Sanjay Dutt does not have to suffer any more.
(Shanti Bhushan is a former Law Minister and a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/this-plot-needs-a-new-ending/article4548129.ece
In Paragraph 70 of its judgment in Sanjay Dutt’s appeal, the Supreme Court has observed thus: “In the case of Sanjay Dutt, the Designated Court took a view on the basis of his own confession that the weapons were not acquired for any terrorist activity but they were acquired for self-defence, therefore, acquittal was recorded in respect of charge under Section 5 of TADA. We fully agree with the same.”
Not punishable
Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code provides: “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.” Section 40 of the IPC provides that Chapter 4 of the code is applicable to not only offences punishable under IPC but also to offences punishable under other special laws like the Arms Act, 1949. Section 96, which has been extracted above, is in chapter 4 of the IPC. It is thus clear that if the weapons for the possession of which Sanjay Dutt has been convicted under the Arms Act had been acquired for self-defence, their possession without a licence would not, on the findings of the Supreme Court, in itself constitute a punishable offence.
This important aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Supreme Court and constitutes a clear error of law on the face of the judgment itself. A review of the judgment on this ground would clearly lie and should be allowed by the same bench of the Supreme Court to which it will go.
However, generally, the judges of the Supreme Court hesitate to accept that they have made a mistake even when they have made one. It is only really great and eminent judges who do not hesitate in accepting their own mistake because it is human to err.
In any case, even if the Bench rejects the review application, it would be open to Sanjay Dutt to file a curative petition, which right was evolved by the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rupa Hurra’s case (2002 (4) SCC 388).
This curative petition can be filed only after the remedy of a review petition has been availed of and has been unsuccessful. According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hurra’s case, such a petition will not go before the same bench which had decided Sanjay Dutt’s case but will go before a larger bench which will have to include not only the Chief Justice of India but also the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice. It is this larger bench that will have to decide the curative petition. There is no reason to feel that when this new bench decides this question of law, which is so clear, it will not set aside the conviction and sentence of Sanjay Dutt.
The evidence in the case fully establishes that well before the Bombay blasts (12/03/1993), for which the entire trial had taken place, there had been serious riots in Bombay (December 1992-January 1993). Subsequent to the demolition of the Babri Masjid (06/12/1992), Muslims of Bombay were being targeted by the Shiv Sena and its mobs. The evidence further shows that Sanjay Dutt’s father, Sunil Dutt, and the whole family was helping to protect innocent Muslims being targeted by the Shiv Sena mobs. This had also occasioned an attack on Sunil Dutt himself (January 1993) for which he had written to the authorities.
Under real threat
It was evident that there was a clear danger of a mob attack on Sanjay Dutt and his family, including his parents. An attack by such a mob could not have been deterred except by the threat of an automatic weapon and it was for this very reason that Sanjay Dutt had agreed to acquire the automatic weapon, namely, the AK-56 Rifle (in mid-January 1993). It is also clear that no private person is ever granted a licence for acquiring an automatic weapon and therefore the only possible way for Sanjay Dutt to protect his family against a mob attack was to acquire the automatic weapon through alternative channels, so long as the purpose of acquiring this automatic weapon was to defend his family from a mob attack, as both the designated court and the Supreme Court clearly found on the evidence recorded. This act of acquiring the possession of the automatic weapon would not constitute the offence as shown above from the relevant provisions of the IPC.
The relevant facts and circumstances in which Sanjay Dutt had to acquire the automatic weapon have been noticed in paragraph 74 of the judgment which is reproduced herein below:
“It was also contended from the side of the appellant that in the year 1992-93, the appellant and his family members were involved in helping people residing in riot affected areas, more particularly, Behrampada, predominantly having a Muslim population which was objectionable to a certain group of persons who were of the opinion that the Dutt family was sympathisers of only the Muslim community. In fact, this led to an attack on Sunil Dutt in January 1993, as well as threatening phone calls were being received at their residence, including threats to the family members being killed as well as the sisters of the appellant being kidnapped and raped. This led to a great and serious apprehension that an attack could be perpetrated upon the Dutt family in view of the fact that Shri Sunil Dutt had already been attacked. This apprehension was clearly set out in the letter of Shri Sunil Dutt to the then DCP of Zone VII dated 06.01.1993, wherein he asked for enhancing security arrangements further and for more police protection at his house as deposed by PW-219 in this case.”
It was in view of these circumstances that the Supreme Court reduced the sentence given to Sanjay Dutt from six years to five years as five years was the minimum prescribed term under Section 25(1A) for being in possession of an automatic weapon.
Honourable person
It is clear from the above facts that Sanjay Dutt is an honourable person who according to the Supreme Court had made a voluntary confession setting out all the facts and circumstances in which he had acquired the automatic weapon, the confession which the Supreme Court found to be voluntary and true and his conviction is also based on his own voluntary and truthful confession.
It would be a travesty of justice if such a person has to go to jail now merely because an important provision of law has been overlooked by the Supreme Court. Either the Supreme Court in a review or curative petition or any other constitutional authority which is entitled to grant him relief must do justice by making an order so that an honourable person like Sanjay Dutt does not have to suffer any more.
(Shanti Bhushan is a former Law Minister and a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/this-plot-needs-a-new-ending/article4548129.ece
Guest- Guest
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by FluteHolder Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:06 pm
I am surprised ppl are defending this convict. I have no love/hate for this actor. I did enjoy his munnabhai a bit (Kamal's version was much better). But he is a businessman(acting). What if any ordinary businessman/IT Consultant/Govt employee does a similar crime, should they be pardoned? What is so special about this guy?
FluteHolder- Posts : 2355
Join date : 2011-06-03
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by truthbetold Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:11 pm
Katju, digvijay and many congress leaders are jumping on the bandwagon of pardon to cash in on sanjay's popularity. He is a good actor in a kal nayak mode of roles. Similar to his dad. Sunil dutt had a fantastic reputation as a class gentleman.
Sanjay rebelled against dad and fell into the wrong crowd. Even though the charge was voilation of arms act, it is widely believed that he used his father's reputation to store serious arms for terrorists. They used his house as a arms dump without sunildutts knowledge. Sanjay is getting away with murdet.
Sanjay rebelled against dad and fell into the wrong crowd. Even though the charge was voilation of arms act, it is widely believed that he used his father's reputation to store serious arms for terrorists. They used his house as a arms dump without sunildutts knowledge. Sanjay is getting away with murdet.
truthbetold- Posts : 6799
Join date : 2011-06-07
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by yogi Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:24 pm
What? How can a governor pardon anyone whose crime comes under union list. Arms act comes under union list and governor's power doesn't extend to pardon any person convicted under the Arms act.trofimov wrote:I don't understand the hue and cry about pardoning Sanjay Dutt. The guy was awarded the minimum sentence required by a law that he agrees that he violated. He not only had his day in court, but he also went through an appeals process and the highest court of the land has confirmed his sentence. I read a report of Mark Katju's statement asking the governor to pardon him. As often, Markji's statement is all over the place. Here is a quick summary of why Markji's argument makes no sense.
yogi- Posts : 207
Join date : 2013-01-10
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Merlot Daruwala Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:33 am
trofimov wrote:I don't understand the hue and cry about pardoning Sanjay Dutt.
There really is no case for pardoning him. But when there's a celebrity involved, voicing a strong opinion on the case is a ticket for cheap publicity for all the attention-whores out there. So you have the usual suspects - Markji, Diggy Raja, Shiv Sena, BJP et al, dishing it out and our media twits lapping it all up.
Clubbing Sanjay Dutt's arms control offence with that of the '93 terrorists was a deliberate and calculated ploy by the govt to distract from their failure to bring the real masterminds to justice. So twenty years later, much is being made of the convictions of one Memon who was lured back to India with the promise of leniency, now being showcased as the mastermind, a whole bunch of foot soldiers (incl corrupt cops and customs officers) who helped bring in the RDX, procure vehicles, plant the bombs etc and of course, this high-profile fall guy who had nothing to do with any of this.
That said, I can understand why someone might have felt threatened enough to procure an AK56, spl in the super-charged times post-Babri. Cops here can't be trusted to protect any citizen, even the rich and privileged ones. Ten years later, Ehsan Jaffri might have avoided his ignominious end -- lassoed and dragged out of his house, dismembered and lit on fire -- if only he had an automatic gun with him. Mob-bravery has a miraculous way of vaporizing when there is the certainty of instant death to the front-running thugs. Dutt's mistake was to get caught breaking the law. And now, he should pay the price without whining about it.
Merlot Daruwala- Posts : 5005
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Captain Bhankas Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:47 am
trofimov wrote:I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
charvaka, i have a question for you. i have read your arguments on death penalty and i believe you subscribe to the view that a civilized country should try to treat the guilty instead of punishing them. given that india would like to be known as a civilized country, hasn't sanjay dutt been treated for the past 20 years? hasn't his treatment ensured that he wouldn't do any such thing in future? then why does he need to serve the sentence? his act has not left behind any victims who need any satisfaction/revenge either.
i also think that there is an "economy" angle to opposing death penalty. i don't know if you agree with that. but if you do, what do you think about govt using my tax money to send him to one of the overcrowded jails of india?
my stand is that he must be punished but then I don't believe in "treatment vs punishment" argument either.
Captain Bhankas- Posts : 676
Join date : 2013-02-05
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Idéfix Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:55 am
I am not enthusiastic about the death penalty, nor am I staunchly opposed to it. I think it should be used rather sparingly, if at all. But I don't view the alternative to the death penalty as "treatment" for the murderer or terrorist. I view life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a credible alternative punishment in such cases, but I understand the cost and security risk implications of such incarceration. This is why I do support that the existing Indian law for death penalty be enforced in the rarest of rare cases after due judicial process.Captain Bhankas wrote:trofimov wrote:I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
charvaka, i have a question for you. i have read your arguments on death penalty and i believe you subscribe to the view that a civilized country should try to treat the guilty instead of punishing them. given that india would like to be known as a civilized country, hasn't sanjay dutt been treated for the past 20 years? hasn't his treatment ensured that he wouldn't do any such thing in future? then why does he need to serve the sentence? his act has not left behind any victims who need any satisfaction/revenge either.
i also think that there is an "economy" angle to opposing death penalty. i don't know if you agree with that. but if you do, what do you think about govt using my tax money to send him to one of the overcrowded jails of india?
my stand is that he must be punished but then I don't believe in "treatment vs punishment" argument either.
Yes, the economy will suffer on the margins if Sanjay is put behind bars for a few years. But I find that less hurtful to society than allowing a well-connected rich person escape the consequences of law-breaking.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:19 pm
trofimov wrote:I don't understand the hue and cry about pardoning Sanjay Dutt. The guy was awarded the minimum sentence required by a law that he agrees that he violated. He not only had his day in court, but he also went through an appeals process and the highest court of the land has confirmed his sentence. I read a report of Mark Katju's statement asking the governor to pardon him. As often, Markji's statement is all over the place. Here is a quick summary of why Markji's argument makes no sense.
Markji's argument Comment Sanjay Dutt was not convicted of a role in terrorism. Non sequitur. He was not sentenced for terrorism; he was sentenced for violating the Arms Act. Sanjay's offense was less than a murder and at one time, Nanavati, a murderer, was pardoned. Non sequitur. Sanjay was not sentenced for murder. He was given the least possible sentence for a crime that he agrees he committed. It is an extenuating circumstance that the crime was committed 20 years ago. If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are convicted and sentenced several years after they commit crimes. Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he had to go to court often. Really? If he didn't want to go to court often, he should not have committed the crime! Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he could not get bank loans. The law does not specify the punishment for his crime as "denial of bank loans," it specifies imprisonment. Sanjay is married and has two children. If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are married and have children. Sanjay was imprisoned for 18 months. Yes, and that is why he doesn't have to spend five years in prison now. His sentence accounts for the time he already spent in jail. Sanjay's parents did good deeds. Non sequitur. The actions of the parents have nothing to do with the crimes of the child.
I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
There is now a daily Padyatra to the Maharshtra Governor mansion pleading for his release, while he is busy doing film work.
The super-rich and the super-influential should be held to a higher standard than common men. At the least Sanjay Dutt should serve 3.5 yrs of Hard labor.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by southindian Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:56 pm
trofimov wrote:I don't understand the hue and cry about pardoning Sanjay Dutt. The guy was awarded the minimum sentence required by a law that he agrees that he violated. He not only had his day in court, but he also went through an appeals process and the highest court of the land has confirmed his sentence. I read a report of Mark Katju's statement asking the governor to pardon him. As often, Markji's statement is all over the place. Here is a quick summary of why Markji's argument makes no sense.
Markji's argument Comment Sanjay Dutt was not convicted of a role in terrorism. Non sequitur. He was not sentenced for terrorism; he was sentenced for violating the Arms Act. Sanjay's offense was less than a murder and at one time, Nanavati, a murderer, was pardoned. Non sequitur. Sanjay was not sentenced for murder. He was given the least possible sentence for a crime that he agrees he committed. It is an extenuating circumstance that the crime was committed 20 years ago. If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are convicted and sentenced several years after they commit crimes. Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he had to go to court often. Really? If he didn't want to go to court often, he should not have committed the crime! Sanjay has suffered a lot -- he could not get bank loans. The law does not specify the punishment for his crime as "denial of bank loans," it specifies imprisonment. Sanjay is married and has two children. If this argument is accepted, most criminals in India should be pardoned, because they are married and have children. Sanjay was imprisoned for 18 months. Yes, and that is why he doesn't have to spend five years in prison now. His sentence accounts for the time he already spent in jail. Sanjay's parents did good deeds. Non sequitur. The actions of the parents have nothing to do with the crimes of the child.
I think Sanjay Dutt should serve out the rest of his sentence in accordance with the law. Pardoning him will reinforce the popular perception that in India, there is one law for the super-rich and another for everyone else.
The beloved NorthIndian hero is adored by many. He'll get the pardon after a few token days in prison.
southindian- Posts : 4643
Join date : 2012-10-08
Re: Why all the fuss about Sanjay Dutt?
by Captain Bhankas Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:01 am
trofimov wrote:I am not enthusiastic about the death penalty, nor am I staunchly opposed to it. I think it should be used rather sparingly, if at all. But I don't view the alternative to the death penalty as "treatment" for the murderer or terrorist. I view life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a credible alternative punishment in such cases, but I understand the cost and security risk implications of such incarceration. This is why I do support that the existing Indian law for death penalty be enforced in the rarest of rare cases after due judicial process.
Yes, the economy will suffer on the margins if Sanjay is put behind bars for a few years. But I find that less hurtful to society than allowing a well-connected rich person escape the consequences of law-breaking.
ok, clear.
Captain Bhankas- Posts : 676
Join date : 2013-02-05
Similar topics» Should Sanjay Dutt be pardoned?
» Sanjay Dutt out on parole - again!
» 'Sanjay Dutt an honorable man'
» Sanjay Dutt's strange problem
» Diggy Raja comes out in defense of Sanjay Dutt
» Sanjay Dutt out on parole - again!
» 'Sanjay Dutt an honorable man'
» Sanjay Dutt's strange problem
» Diggy Raja comes out in defense of Sanjay Dutt
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum