Justice Theory

and

The Ten Amendments

By Thomas Easaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

"What man needs is justice and nothing else", is the Justice Theory.

He does not need capitalism, communism or communalism and when justice is in place, everything else will be in place.

Justice for only the rich is capitalism and justice for only the poor is communism and justice for everybody, irrespective of money, colour, caste, creed or brains is the Justice Theory.

From time immemorial, man has been in the pursuit of food, clothing, shelter, security, love, faith, comfort, knowledge, recognition, fame, wealth, supremacy, equality and freedom - when what he actually should have pursued was justice.

Justice and not freedom, as popularly believed, should have been a man's birthright - for my freedom ends where your freedom begins.

"Justice", as defined by Thomas Easaw, "is my freedom, rights and responsibilities peacefully co-existing with yours."

For centuries, we have remained divided on the basis of creed, greed and freedom. For once let us all unite for the sake of justice and for peace ever after.

The Justice Theory argues that justice should be declared a man's birthright, so that every man would be able to demand it, rather than beg and plead for it as he is forced today.

 

If justice is to be declared a man's birthright a few amendments in the present day Law are required and so I propose "The Ten Amendments"

1.       a) Every other profession in the world, excepting the legal profession, has a certain amount of accountability attached to it. This official immunity given to the legal profession has not aided the interest of justice for the human kind and this can be prima facie understood from sheer logic itself without citing any instances. This unaccountability of the legal system is the root cause of all manmade evil and of the delay and cost synonymous with justice today.

b) It is  sad to note that law makers the world over, while making laws have been formulating provisions for their own safety and privileges first, than protecting the interest of justice for humanity. The ‘action taken in good faith’ clause allows the judiciary to evade accountability. Unless and until the judiciary is kind and generous enough to forego some of the privileges that it enjoys today, absolute justice will remain a distant reality.

c) Let us take the situation of a death sentence being proved wrong by an appropriate authority and on the other hand let us suppose this death sentence was that of a poor man who in the ordinary course, based on his meager resources, would not have  had any other option than to forego his life. But if fortunately he takes the courage because of his actual innocence, borrows the resources entirely on somebody else's  mercy, goes for an appeal and wins his life back – is it wrong for at least the victim to believe that some sort of accountability has to be affixed on the judge. Judges should be made accountable for the judgments that they make and a death sentence if proved wrong, if not properly explainable by the judge, should amount to attempt to murder or to at least some lesser degree of responsibility, than the absolute unaccountability of today. The judiciary should be made accountable and an accountable judiciary should be held supreme.

d) For those who feel that this is an intimidating situation for the judge, a proper explanation as to why he judged so, based on the available evidence, would suffice. And for the rest of those who believe that this is a Damocles' sword - indeed it is. But is it not better to have it on the head of a few people who are capable, qualified, trained and paid for it, than to have it over every other human being on this planet, for the fear of a callous judgment? The prime duty of the judiciary is to deliver justice, than to dilute regulations in order to accommodate mediocrity. For those who feel that they cannot take the pressures of the job of a judge can always look for another job, where as a citizen has nowhere else to go for justice than to the judiciary.

e) This accountability would ensure that the lower court judgments are just and fair, making the judiciary prompt and cost effective and forcing all other government departments to fall in line. When this accountability percolates down to the government departments, corruption can be plugged absolutely. When the ‘action taken in good faith’ clause protects an officer to the extent that he is not accountable at all, appealing to a higher authority may bring temporary justice to the complainant, but does not stop the corrupt officer from officially continuing with his corrupt decisions. It is not only enough to book an officer when he accepts bribe, but it is also necessary to book him when he decides unjustly for vengeance or for sheer arrogance.

f) An accountable lower court will also eradicate the unspoken public fear that there is a nexus between various forces to prolong the judicial process, in order to extract more. 

g) Because corruption is everywhere, does not mean that everyone is corrupt. The very fact, that the earth still spins on its axis without fail or falter, is reason enough to believe that the good forces are still in command. But I believe that the propriety of the judiciary should not depend on the goodness of the judge, but on the goodness of the system, so that justice can be expected of it as a right.

2.       Judges, worldwide, should not be recruited through political appeasement or by popular vote, nor should practicing lawyers be made judges. Their recruitment, training and maintenance should be a class separately above, so that only the best in capability and integrity would opt for it. It is therefore the need of the age to have a special recruitment system with the highest standards and remuneration for judges. 

3.       a) Lawyers should also be held accountable for their acts and deeds like everyone else. When somebody helps a criminal, is not the helper a part of the crime? Like we do not let the robber free, saying his profession is robbery; lawyers should also not be set free but be punished, along with the convicted, in the proportion of their role in the malpractices committed, if any.

b) It is high time that the civilized society took objection to the undue relaxation given to such professions, which has only resulted in the abetment of crime. This does not mean that anybody giving a glass of water or appearing for the accused should be punished. But the lawyer should be punished at least  when it is proved that he has helped the defendant/plaintiff to destroy evidence, manipulate witnesses or commit similar crimes, which are punishable under the Law.

c)  And this unaccountability for lawyers, is the cause of the undue delay and cost synonymous with justice today. Such accountability would greatly reduce the number of false cases which is what causes this undue delay of justice. The hefty court fee and attendant expenses, expected to prevent nuisance litigation, have only left the poor in the lurch.

d) Such an amendment would bring a sense of honor and pride to the righteous lawyer, for he is the one who has led us over the years, by his relentless struggle and sacrifice, to this platform from where I am trying to reach out to you now.  It will also prevent the two other great injustices, viz. delay of justice and cost for justice will stand truly delivered, only when delivered promptly, and that too, free of any cost.

4.       If there is a provision for punishing lawyers, then the number of false cases would be greatly reduced, facilitating an atmosphere for the abolition of court fee. The collection of court fee has been one of the greatest human rights violations in the history of mankind. In my country, India, where more than 50% of the people are below the poverty line and more than 30% just manages to live hand to mouth, it is very clear that about 80% of the population cannot afford to pay court fee. This directly means that only 20% of the population in my country has access to the judiciary and the remaining 80% are prevented from approaching the court by predefined conditions such as hefty court fee. This is human rights violation. It is only a citizen’s basic right to be able to seek justice without any cost and without the humiliation of being declared a pauper and so collection of court fee should be abolished.

5.       Discretionary power is what causes corruption and if removed from all facets of the Law, will plug corruption absolutely. The provision to punish arbitrarily, vested as discretionary power on the judge, would only make justice to precariously perch on lawyer’s skill, if not already overtaken by influence, power, prejudice or corruption, in order to get the judgment proclaimed at its discretionary minimum or maximum. Power does not corrupt, only discretionary power does and power with accountability turns out to be mere duty.

6.       Fine in lieu of imprisonment is one of life's greatest injustices against the poor. This is an exclusive escape route for the rich and wealthy. For the poor both imprisonment and fine are great pains, whereas for the rich only one of them is. The Law around the world has been an evolvement of the law of the kings and feudal lords, which always had a provision of an unjust favoritism to help the rich and the powerful. It will only be when, punishment in the form of fine is scrapped, (except in the case of very trivial offences where only repetition calls for imprisonment) will justice prevail in any land.

7.       The present practice of the judiciary relying heavily on prior higher court judgments should be totally done away with, because the exact context, the related evidence, whether the case was properly represented and contested & whether the concerned parties were genuine, cannot be ascertained. As of now, any two conniving lawyers can sabotage any law of the land, if one of them is willing to lose for the sake of gain. This back-door provision  for creating laws and rules should be stopped at any cost, for a civilized society cannot let an unaccountable judiciary to set precedents. Law making should be left to the representative council of the people of the land and any important decision should be legislated at the earliest opportunity, than to leave it in the secret folds of certain decisions accessible only to knowledgeable lawyers and not to the common citizen, and thus setting the legal system free of its secretive and uncertain nature.  But this  law making should be without the intervention of the judiciary, for in a democracy you cannot rule out the possibility of the wrong people winning the elections or dictatorial interests overtaking humanitarian ones. In which case, who else can come to the rescue but an accountable judiciary.

8.       The evasive tendency of adding law after law, without affixing accountability for judges and lawyers, has made the entire system bulky and cumbersome. This has led to a predicament where a judge cannot entertain an argument without the exact section/subsection numerically specified, or where a lawyer cannot specialize in more than one stream of the Law, even after a lifetime's effort. At the same time, it is expected of even the commonest of men to know the Law, for ignorance of the Law is not considered an excuse. How unjust can injustice be? This is a clear case of dividing the world on the basis of knowledge, where the well informed intimidates the very existence of the less informed. The Law definitely needs to be simplified so that the common citizen can comprehend it, obey it and live by it.

9.       When there are so many loop holes and unaccountability in our present day legal system, it would be absolutely unjust to implement capital punishment for two reasons

a) The essential reason for saying that one should not take life is because one cannot give back life.  If it is a crime when a citizen kills, how can it not be a crime when the government or the court implements capital punishment?

b)  Secondly when it is blatantly clear that our justice delivery system is not foolproof, it would be greatly unjust to force somebody to end his life under judicial supervision.

10.   Justice should be declared a man's birthright, so that every man would be  able to demand it, rather than beg and plead for it as he is forced to do today

©Thomas Easaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home

Contact

The Justice Theory

 The songs from the music album

"Don't Start the Last World War"

with lyrics and explanation

Don't Start the Last World War

The Search

The Lawyer

The Judge 

The Reminder  

The Trap 

The Optimist  

The Beggar

 The songs from the music album

"5 for Obama" with lyrics

Why not try Obama?

If Obama Wins

Obama is What You Should

The Vote for Obama Song 

Yes You Can 

 SINGLES with lyrics

Campaign Song For Judicial  Accountability   

Welcome to India 

Vote for Our Country's Sake 

I am Sorry Sri Lanka

A Song for Gaza 

©Thomas Easaw

 

All themes, theories, lyrics, music,

vocals , direction and engineering

by Thomas Easaw.

 

Published by

Thomas Easaw,

THOMAS EASAW LTD.,

95, Jawahar Nagar, 

Cochin 682020, India.

 

StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter