Justice

Someone asked the question "If law is based on morality,
then why are decisions based on rule of law rather than
what is morally right?" Let us consider the impact of
that statement for a moment...

In a simpler world, an innocent man could have punishment
for a crime, he did not commit, by virtue of hearsay or
simply because he was the most convenient candidate who
was avaliable. Thus guilty men could go free...

The laws, by and large seek to offer balance, by protecting
the rights of the innocent. Evidence offered, circumstances
and even witnesses must be questioned implicitly. Thus can
the innocent be protected...

Yet, is it really the innocent that are protected? Those
who commit wrong, muderers, corporations, embezzlers etc.
hire lawyers, who argue points of technicality, rather
than of innocence. Thus the guilty are protected...

I am listening to the current calls from all sections of society that a resumption of hangings is part of the answer to crime.

I believe that examples should be made but not by a few deaths. It is time to review our laws and let the punishments fit the crime.

It must begin with detection and with enforcement. People break laws and are getting away. Why should criminals have fear? How do we make criminals pay?