On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Majlis Law <[email protected]> wrote: > >This ought to have been a moment of great jubilation for us at Majlis since we >have been closely following up the two Shakti Mills gangrape cases and >providing support to the survivors through out their ordeal, both inside and >outside the court. It is through this confidence building measure and a >soothing support from committed young lawyers and social workers that the >victims could depose with composure and without contradictions and could >withstand the rigorous cross-examination which combined aggression with >derogatory comments. > >The verdict on Friday, though expected, has left us with a bitter taste and a >sense of betrayal. Not only is the sentence meted out to the young boys from >impoverished background too harsh, but our fear is that it will set a bad >precedent and serve to dilute the "rarest of rare" premise upon which a >verdict of death penalty must hinge as per our criminal jurisprudence. While >most countries are moving towards abolition of death penalty, this is a move >in the reverse direction. > >Even while demanding state accountability and prompt and stringent action, the >women's movement has stood unwaveringly against death penalty. Our position >has always been "rape is not murder" and a woman who is raped is not a zinda >laash. Even when committed by the accused more than once, rape cannot be >termed as "rarest of rare". If rape is equated with murder, more women will be >killed after they are raped. Even worse, less number of women will report >rape, particularly if it is committed by a near and dear one. > >Section 376E was meant for unrepentant repeat offenders who commit the same >offence after being tried and convicted for it once earlier. By applying it in >a case where the trial has gone on parallely and the sentence was pronounced >within a few minutes of each other, the court has made a mockery of this >provision. While we were present in court during the proceedings, as watching >advocates for the two girls, today we are left with no choice but to speak out >against the harshness of the punishment. > >What also saddens us is that the manner in which the public prosecutor >advanced his argument in support of death penalty. He used the most regressive >and anti-women arguments --that a woman would rather lose her life than her >chastity, that rape is a form of murder, it amounts to loss of prestige and >honour and if a woman is deprived of prestige she has no life left. Further, >that it is an offence against the state and the collective conscience of the >society demands death penalty. > >But the mighty and all powerful state and the collective conscience of the >society have nothing to offer to the victims except sending to the gallows the >young boys who committed the crime, while the girls are left for their own >means to rebuild their lives. > >The one termed as "telephone operator", a school drop-out from the lower >class, daughter of a struggling single mother, is trying hard to make ends >meet and to cope with the mental scars and is living constantly under the fear >of the intrusion of television cameras into her private life. The public >prosecutor and the investigating agency have no time even to inform her of the >verdict, yet the death penalty is demanded in her name. She and the >photo-journalist, two stray souls connected through a strange occurrence, have >reached out to each other in their desolation. They are the brave souls, the >fearless ones, the Nirbhayas, who need to be rewarded for their bravery and >not cast away by the wayside. >But the worst occurrence was when the defence asked to examine two >impoverished women and display their poverty and misery to plead 'mitigating >circumstances'. Neither the judge, nor the prosecutor, nor the defence lawyers >deemed it necessary to maintain the dignity of these women or maintain the >decorum and the sanctity of a court about to pronounce the harshest of >punishment in the statute books. > >The judge did not restrain reporters from crowding around the witness box and >transforming the court into a freefor-all market place. Even while awarding >death penalty, a court of justice and fairness cannot lose sight of its own >dignity and sanctity and allow the court to turn into a media spectacle. > > >Flavia Agnes, legal scholar and women's rights activist, on the Shakti Mills >verdict. > > > >http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/cover-story/Opinion-Why-I-oppose-death-for-rapists/articleshow/33250078.cms > > > >Audrey D'mello >Programme Director > >Majlis Legal Centre, >Tel: 022 26661252 / 26662394 >Website: www.majlislaw.com >Facebook: majlislaw Skype:majlis.law __._,_.___ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "humanrights movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
