Watching Abu Salem on TV a few weeks ago, I was struck by how fit and smart he looked. Clad in a T-shirt and jeans, he walked briskly surrounded by policemen. Had I not known about his case, I would have mistaken him for a cinema star. He was making an appearance in court in the Mumbai bomb blasts case. He looked well-fed and well looked after. He has been in prison since 2007 when he was extradited from Portugal. He cannot be hanged as the Indian government has given Portugal an undertaking to that effect. He may even be let out after some years.
The criminal justice system in India is very weak. Not that we lack strong laws, just that enforcement is poor. Many a times the police botches up the case or vested interests and corruption intervene to let the guilty off the hook. This, if the criminal is caught and charged. Even if the case does go to court, the criminal, if rich, can always hire a high profile lawyer to fight his case. So criminals carry on their trade with impunity and often with blessings of powerful people.
So how does one rectify this situation ? How does one ensure the guilty are brought to book ? How does one provide justice to the common man ?
We first need to understand and accept certain facts.
a. In a highly populous country like India where criminals number in hundreds of thousands, it is impossible to catch every one of them. Neither we have the resources nor will it be physically possible. I am not advocating that we should not try to catch them all, just pointing out the futility of the exercise.
b. The courts already have a backlog of decades of cases. They just cannot handle more criminal cases. While we should find ways and means to speed up cases, we need to accept that we must look for ways to reduce litigation.
c. Man, by nature, tends to break rules. It is only the fear of punishment that makes us obey laws. We go through red lights if there is no traffic policeman. We even go in the wrong direction in a one-way street. These are small infractions committed by "law abiding citizens". Then what about hardened criminals ? What would they fear ? And why ?
So we have ended up in a lose-lose situation. If we catch more criminals, the system cannot handle the load. If we don't, we end up with more crime.
So what do we do ?
Crime has economics associated with it. A person commits a crime because his gain is much more than when being law-abiding. Also he experiences a sense of power.
To attack crime and criminals, we should address these two factors. One, we should make crime economically unviable. Secondly, the power should be taken away. How do we go about doing this ?
First, the punishment for the same crime should be different for different persons. Say, a common citizen commits a crime for which the punishment is 5 years or X. If the same crime is committed by a policeman, the punishment should be 2X or two times i.e. 10 years. A judge or an MP or MLA should get 15 years or 3X punishment. A hardened criminal who already has convictions should also get 15 years punishment. This scaling of punishment will deter potential and hardened criminals. It is common to see people in positions of power commit crimes. As punishment increases with position, the incentive to misuse position for profit will reduce.
What about instances where people in official positions connive with perpetrators of crime to help the criminals escape by misusing their position ? For example, a police officer could destroy crucial evidence to destroy a case. A judge could write a favourable judgement for a consideration. Or a government officer could help generate false documents. In such cases, the punishment should be 5X, i.e., 5 times. It is far bigger a crime to misuse one's official position to abet a crime than to commit the crime itself.
The logic is that those with positions of power in the government should have higher levels of compliance to laws. Then crime will not pay.
Once convicted, the person should be made to serve the full sentence without remission or parole. Also multiple sentences should run in sequence, as in the Ram Rahim case, and not concurrently.
I know there are many who believe criminals can reform and become law-abiding citizens. It will be instructive to know how many criminals have turned over a new leaf in the last 70 years and what the percentage is. I believe the concept of reform should not apply to hardened or professional criminals. They should be dealt with sternly.The idea is to make a severe example of the few we manage to catch.
Deterrence is the best and most effective policy.
The criminal justice system in India is very weak. Not that we lack strong laws, just that enforcement is poor. Many a times the police botches up the case or vested interests and corruption intervene to let the guilty off the hook. This, if the criminal is caught and charged. Even if the case does go to court, the criminal, if rich, can always hire a high profile lawyer to fight his case. So criminals carry on their trade with impunity and often with blessings of powerful people.
So how does one rectify this situation ? How does one ensure the guilty are brought to book ? How does one provide justice to the common man ?
We first need to understand and accept certain facts.
a. In a highly populous country like India where criminals number in hundreds of thousands, it is impossible to catch every one of them. Neither we have the resources nor will it be physically possible. I am not advocating that we should not try to catch them all, just pointing out the futility of the exercise.
b. The courts already have a backlog of decades of cases. They just cannot handle more criminal cases. While we should find ways and means to speed up cases, we need to accept that we must look for ways to reduce litigation.
c. Man, by nature, tends to break rules. It is only the fear of punishment that makes us obey laws. We go through red lights if there is no traffic policeman. We even go in the wrong direction in a one-way street. These are small infractions committed by "law abiding citizens". Then what about hardened criminals ? What would they fear ? And why ?
So we have ended up in a lose-lose situation. If we catch more criminals, the system cannot handle the load. If we don't, we end up with more crime.
So what do we do ?
Crime has economics associated with it. A person commits a crime because his gain is much more than when being law-abiding. Also he experiences a sense of power.
To attack crime and criminals, we should address these two factors. One, we should make crime economically unviable. Secondly, the power should be taken away. How do we go about doing this ?
First, the punishment for the same crime should be different for different persons. Say, a common citizen commits a crime for which the punishment is 5 years or X. If the same crime is committed by a policeman, the punishment should be 2X or two times i.e. 10 years. A judge or an MP or MLA should get 15 years or 3X punishment. A hardened criminal who already has convictions should also get 15 years punishment. This scaling of punishment will deter potential and hardened criminals. It is common to see people in positions of power commit crimes. As punishment increases with position, the incentive to misuse position for profit will reduce.
What about instances where people in official positions connive with perpetrators of crime to help the criminals escape by misusing their position ? For example, a police officer could destroy crucial evidence to destroy a case. A judge could write a favourable judgement for a consideration. Or a government officer could help generate false documents. In such cases, the punishment should be 5X, i.e., 5 times. It is far bigger a crime to misuse one's official position to abet a crime than to commit the crime itself.
The logic is that those with positions of power in the government should have higher levels of compliance to laws. Then crime will not pay.
Once convicted, the person should be made to serve the full sentence without remission or parole. Also multiple sentences should run in sequence, as in the Ram Rahim case, and not concurrently.
I know there are many who believe criminals can reform and become law-abiding citizens. It will be instructive to know how many criminals have turned over a new leaf in the last 70 years and what the percentage is. I believe the concept of reform should not apply to hardened or professional criminals. They should be dealt with sternly.The idea is to make a severe example of the few we manage to catch.
Deterrence is the best and most effective policy.
