Tag: liberty

Plight of Victim in Criminal Justice System

                                                        (Photo: The Daily Guardian)

You want to report,
but that could get your family in danger… And if you snitch on a real gang
leader…. they can get you bad… [The] police don’t have your back unless
you’re like someone on the news or whatever, and they will kind of give you
witness protection. But that doesn’t happen in the real world. 

–FEMALE,
SACRAMENTO

 The expression
‘victims of crime’ has been defined in section 2 of the code of criminal
procedure, 1973. Initially, the criminal justice system in India was focused on
punishment as part of the crime without much attention on the suffering of
victims of crime. The rights of prisoners were protected even after their
conviction whereas little concern was shown for the rights of victims of crime.
Though there is a wealth of data on victims of reported crime nationally, as
well as various services and programs intending to meet their needs, there
remains a dearth of clear information on how to interrupt cycles of violence
and the persistence vulnerability that keeps such an overwhelming percentage at
high risk of experiencing more crime.

 However, with the
emergence of public interest litigation, the higher courts’ attention was drawn
to this lacunae in the existing criminal justice system by social activists,
and the courts started granting compensatory relief to victims of crime, but
comprehensive legislation on this aspect of criminal justice was still awaited.
In recent times, among the many reforms canvassed for improving the criminal justice
system is the one that advocates a victim orientation to criminal justice
administration. Though there are some provisions under the Indian constitution
and some sections in the code of criminal procedure, 1973 to protect the rights
of the victims and for providing compensation, the criminal courts at the lower
level in India have ignored those provisions for a long time and not utilized
them during their sentencing processes.

 Victim plays an
important role in the criminal justice system but his or her welfare is not
given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of high courts or
the supreme court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights
holds much importance. “Tears shed for the accused are traditional
and trendy but has the law none for the victim of crime, the unknown martyrs“?
This remark by the Hon’ble Justice VK Krishna Iyer aptly describes the plight
of victims in the criminal justice system in our country. The victim is almost
a forgotten entity in the criminal system rather the irony is that the victim
sets the wheel of justice moving by giving information to the state
instrumentalities without which the entire system would collapse.

 “Victims
should come first“…

 It is of
course an indisputable fact that victims of crime have long been a forgotten
group, a group that suffered for centuries not only from society’s neglect but
also from the exploration of their rightful dias by the state. It is also true
that they had their conflicts stolen by professionals and by the criminal
justice system. However, the exceptional speed with which they were
rediscovered and their cause adopted by the politicians, let alone the
political climate that prevailed at the time of their rediscovery, is bound to
raise questions about the real interests and motives behind what has been
portrayed as a genuinely humanitarian and disinterest cause.

 A comprehensive
legal code for victim compensation is a dire necessity. The time has come for
the legislature to stop shirking its duty. Hence, a comprehensive legal code
should be enacted providing for fair treatment, assistance, and adequate
compensation to victims of crime. Only on embarking on this step can justice in
its more altruistic forms be obtained. It should be made mandatory for the
state to pay compensation to the victims of the crime of not only the private
criminal wrongs but also for the criminal acts perpetrated by its agencies.
This mandatory duty of the state gains importance from two points of view
namely as a welfare state committed to the constitutional goal of social
justice and secondly, for its failure to protect the life, liberty, and
security of its citizens.

 Therefore, I would
like to conclude with this quote-

 “Too
much money…. often resulted in further crimes which were fatal to innocent
victims who need not have been victims if justice had been put first and mercy
second.” 

–Agatha Christie

 

WOMEN EMPOWERMENT

“There is nothing that can destroy a woman and her power.”

Women empowerment is explained as accepting women’s thoughts and helping them to take a stand for themselves. This has become a topic of concern in today’s society. But do we care about empowering women? The answer is probably no. We, as a part of our society, give many speeches on this. Do we indeed mean what we say? Do we follow the same with the women around us? Again, the answer will be no. Indian society is likely to appreciate empowerment when it is about others. When it comes to our own family, we start to think about society. The REAL empowerment starts when there is nothing to think about a woman taking a stand for herself. 

Women empowerment should be focused on encouraging women to fight for their rights. Whatever a woman does should be done because it is her right and not because she is allowed to do it. No one has to let her do something that she wants. A woman can do whatever she wants without seeking any permission. A man does not ask for a woman’s permission to do something. Then why should a woman get her father’s or husband’s permission? Let me cite an example. We all have men in our family. Have we seen our father or brother asking for permission to do a job? No. But we would have seen our mother or sister seeking permission to take up her job or studies and also would have come across many ‘NO’s. 

What is the need for somebody to allow us to do something when we have the right? First, women should understand this point. She must not get impressed by someone’s sympathy. From the ages, a women’s mindset is fixed that her work is to take care of the family, engage in daily chores and take care of children. We convince ourselves to do all these right from the beginning which should not be done. No woman should compromise their career, dreams in the name of family. The traditional mindset should be withdrawn from women’s minds first. She should believe that she can achieve things beyond family. She has her own identity and being one’s daughter or wife is not her true identity. We can expect the change from others, especially, men only if we become the change. 

Women empowerment doesn’t mean that women should be given higher priority. Empowerment should work towards an equal status both for men and women. If a noble thing or achievement is done by a woman, we see it in the headlines of newspapers or magazines mentioning them as woman officer, woman pilot, female poet, or female artist. But we don’t identify any male artist, male poet, man officer, or man pilot. This describes how equal society is. Equality in society will be established when there is no particular mention given to either man or woman.

In addition, we must acknowledge that society is changing practically towards equality. We have started addressing the chairman as chairperson, man-made as artificial, and mankind as humanity. A six-year-old girl raising questions on the terms coined in the patriarchal society stands as proof that this is not going to last anymore. Her questions went viral and she was answered by some of the achievers. They explain to her about our old patriarchal society and the influence of patriarchy in language as well. The world needs to change and it is changing. We must agree that this little kid has already reached halfway to create an equal society.

Designation or Profession shouldn’t be linked with genders. It should be generic. Our work towards this would be supporting and standing for all those who are ready to take a stand for themselves. “Equality is the soul of liberty” should not be ignored at any cost.

John Stuart Mill

A lot of scholars and philosophers alike have discussed the various notions of freedom for centuries. One such important notion is provided by John Stuart Mill. Mill’s contribution to the conception of freedom is extremely valuable. As one of the pioneers of conceptualizing freedom, his philosophy has shaped the trajectories of liberal democratic political models all over the world, from the 19th and 20th centuries to the present day and age.

His conception of freedom is contingent upon his philosophical method of inductive reasoning and his emphasis on empiricism from which he derives most of his theoretical formulations. Derived from the principle of utility, Mill believes that happiness can only be achieved in an environment of social freedom as stated by Leo Strauss and Joeseph Crospey. This means that in advocating the attainment for higher pleasures, his defence of liberty is consistent with his utilitarian beliefs.

Mill’s basis for defence of liberty rests on the foremost freedom i.e. speech and expression. Jill Gordon states, all ideas as per Mill, must be expressed freely to serve the ultimate end of human progress. Mill opposes all forms of censorship in this respect and advocates ideas to be freely expressed whether the opinion is true or false, he especially upholds the right of minorities to express their opinion.

Irrespective of its share of limitations, Mill’s contribution to political philosophy and other fields of study cannot be negated. In claiming the same, it is important to recognise that Mill’s idea of freedom especially freedom of expression has become the basis for the operation or even the definition of liberal democracies. Hence, the current trajectory of politics needs to be taken into consideration with respect to Mill’s ideas. With China’s growing surveillance with its repressive internet laws and censorship regime, especially with the current trend extending to transnational censorship, there is a need to consider Mill’s conception of freedom not just as a human right but also in context of the individual intellectual development.

The censorship regime in China curbs the intellectual development of citizens into becoming model citizens; according to a unified idea of the state, making subordination, easier. However, the lack of freedom of expression in an authoritarian model like China, does not negate the problems of seeing the former as a panacea in liberal democracies. Here, Mill’s ideas lack his vision in practice, irrespective of their theoretical merit. We see the negatives of unconditional liberty provided to media houses which are becoming all too powerful. Such power has resulted in the generation of fake news; through social media platforms and misinformation dominating public debate.

Though Mill would support the circulation of fake news; as part of intellectual development, the spread of misinformation is detrimental in many ways. When viewed as a panacea, freedom of expression also leads to mob tendencies and formulation of opinion based on bandwagoning. This largely leads to unfavourable democratic decisions. Therefore, while liberty cannot be compromised upon, Mill’s idea of freedom in today’s times needs to be constantly considered, as well as challenged.

Is Liberalism the Most Optimal Solution???

Liberalism, like socialism, fascism, or nationalism, is a political ideology. Liberalism has a longer history than most political ideologies. It has primarily evolved out of sustained struggles against hierarchically organised social and political relations. In various ways, liberalism captures the ideological map of various political struggles that human beings have witnessed, roughly in the last 300 years. Benjamin Constant, a forerunner of liberalism, held that liberty for the ancients ‘consisted in an active and constant participation in collective power’, whereas for the moderns it consisted in ‘peaceful enjoyment and private independence’.

Over the past four centuries liberalism has been so successful that it has driven all its opponents off the battlefield. Now it is disintegrating, destroyed by a mix of hubris and internal contradictions, according to Patrick Deneen, a professor of politics at the University of Notre Dame. The gathering wreckage of liberalism’s twilight years can be seen all around, especially in America, Mr Deneen’s main focus. The founding tenets of the faith have been shattered. Equality of opportunity has produced a new meritocratic aristocracy that has all the aloofness of the old aristocracy with none of its sense of noblesse oblige.

Democracy has degenerated into a theatre of the absurd. And technological advances are reducing ever more areas of work into meaningless drudgery. “The gap between liberalism’s claims about itself and the lived reality of the citizenry” is now so wide that “the lie can no longer be accepted,” Mr Deneen writes. What better proof of this than the vision of 1,000 private planes whisking their occupants to Davos to discuss the question of “creating a shared future in a fragmented world”?

Liberalism is more than one thing. On any close examination, it seems to fracture into a range of related but sometimes competing visions. In this entry we focus on debates within the liberal tradition. (1) We contrast three interpretations of liberalism’s core commitment to liberty. (2) We contrast ‘old’ and ‘new’ liberalism.(3) We ask whether liberalism is a ‘comprehensive’ or a ‘political’ doctrine. (4) We close with questions about the ‘ reach’ of liberalism — does it apply to all humankind? Must all political communities be liberal? Could a liberal coherently answer this question by saying No? Could a liberal coherently answer this question by saying Yes?

Political Liberalism:-

As his work evolved, Rawls insisted that his liberalism was not a ‘comprehensive’ doctrine, that is, one which includes an overall theory of value, an ethical theory, an epistemology, or a controversial metaphysics of the person and society. Our modern societies, characterized by a ‘reasonable pluralism’, are already filled with such doctrines. The aim of ‘political liberalism’ is not to add yet another sectarian doctrine, but to provide a political framework that is neutral between such controversial comprehensive doctrines.If it is to serve as the basis for public reasoning in our diverse western societies, liberalism must be restricted to a core set of political principles that are, or can be, the subject of consensus among all reasonable citizens. Rawls’s notion of a purely political conception of liberalism seems more austere than the traditional liberal political theories discussed above, being largely restricted to constitutional principles upholding basic civil liberties and the democratic process.

Optimal liberal solutions can be used to remove political inequality from the society. There are two ways to this. One, Rights of Capital from the perspective of income and control. Two, Rights to Capital which could be direct or indirect. Hence, these are the two main things through which liberalism can do good to the society.

Although liberalism had been on the ascendant since the end of Cold War and the demise of communism in Soviet Russia, prompting some to even make the foolhardy claim of an end to ideology, the future of liberal theory and practice will depend largely on how precisely it meets its criticisms and shortcomings.

“The way in which liberalism Institutionalises self-criticism will itself be a gurantee of its progress”.) – Alan Ryan

Refrences:-opendemocrcy.in