Dear BK:
>In law the onus
of responsibility falls on the powerful. But that does not absolve the
less guilty because of his >inferior status. As you know,
modern law is precision law. The measure of punishment is proportioned
to the >guilt. At the same time the aider and abettor of a capital
offence is presumed to be equally guilty with the main
>culprit.
*** These things could be considered only if case is heard, guilt
is established
and the time comes to mete out penalty; and a case could be made
that the bribe giver was actively involved in corrupting the bribe
seeker.
Yes, it could happen, as in large government contracts for
example. But in the vast majority of the instances it is a direct case
of those in power exercising it to extort bribes. The PERMIT RAJ was
one of the prime generators of such abuse.
Under the circumstances, to suggest that the rampant corruption
is caused equally by those in power as well as those who succumb to
such powers, would be a highly unpersuasive argument. More so in an
environment of complete lack of accountability and an absence of due
process where justice could reliably be sought.
That was my point.
c
At 6:04 PM -0400 4/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Language: en
Dear Chandan
I am not even sure that Rabindra Nath Tagore said it. But what matters is the truth, the core, the point it makes. You're right. In law the onus of responsibility falls on the powerful. But that does not absolve the less guilty because of his inferior status. As you know, modern law is precision law. The measure of punishment is proportioned to the guilt. At the same time the aider and abettor of a capital offence is presumed to be equally guilty with the main culprit. So as with cannabis in some Asian country I make corruption a capital offence. So to win the argument with you, I have defended Rabindra Nath Tagore and also myself.
This is why at the beginning I pleaded we should be objective, not argumentative. It is possible to prolong a discussion by beating about the bush (chale bare kubai). Once the Reader's Digest had an article trying to prove that two plus two did not make four. The author of the article almost succeeded. The celebrated example is that of Northcote Parkinson who expounded the famous Parkinson's Law. Prof Parkinson once said that he would be remembered by the world for a bogus theory he propounded while his weighty books written with care were forgotten.
Regards
Bhuban
.
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
