but the real question lingered...especially once i saw the parting comments...
- crime in mumbai declined by 70% in the 2 yrs that the ATS (anti-terrorism squad) was in operation
- it was abolished in Jan 1993
- dec 1993 were the mumbai blasts...
the real question...is an encounter a preferred way of handling terrorists, even when you have caught them alive...precisely because their relationships with the 'decision makers' will ensure that they are out on the street the very next day....
personally...i am in favor of the theme...jackshit to human rights and jazz...! they didnt show any mercy when dealing with their business...and we will show none instead...
but am sure the arguments will challenge my chain of thought...let them come if you have any...
~a
9 comments:
warikoo has your blog turned into a movie review page? call me now.
Elaine:
if you dont hv anything to say...shut ur trap..! fool...
The larger question here is - is capital punishment justified?
If you try to study the efficacy, there are multiple studies by economists across the world that come out in support. In fact, continuing on the efficacy path, it appears that increasing the frequency is not as effective as the increasing the tenure of capital punishment. But since we are talking encounters here, discussing the length of punishment is irrelevant :D
Personally, I feel one is justified in using violence in defense and as a pre-emptive deterrent, but not the non-sensical way the Mad Texan has been using it to shock and awe the terroristts of the world.
If one has reliable intel on motive and potential impact of a terrorist act, by all means taking them down is justified!
Ummm...no dude...the question is very different frm capital punishment. CP assumes that the legal enforcements are in place...to actually lead someone to CP.
encounters are more a derivation of the fact that if left to law, the criminals will ventually escape..given their 'buying power'...politicians...cops...judges etc..!
that said..i agree to ur pov on CP..! :)
ok, so I failed to hijack the topic :D
encounters are right now painted as a manifestation of the frustration of the people caught in the system and tied down by the law. Yes, if left to the law (as it stands today) the criminals will get away. So that should call for a review of the laws governing the police themselves. More importantly, the legislation needs to look at incentives of the men in the line of fire.
But that's a lot of theory. So until then, let the encounters continue... ballz to humanitarian protests and all the media that condemns the police "brutality"...
qed...
thanks daddy...
Hey, what about innocents.
Who is to decide am I a terrorist before pulling the trigger,
or are a few individual deaths acceptable as collateral damage.
and what if the innocent killed is my family memeber or even myself.
Dont talk like GW Bush..
We are having this debate because we live in a relatively free and democratic setup.
Though I am all for shooting not the people in streets but who would eventually be responsible for getting them out of jails.
Nischint:
My fault...i communicated my case half baked. my defintion of encounter is not the lokhandvala act...wherein innocents are kept at stake for a few criminals. its more of what happened (if u saw the movie) jst between the cop and the criminal.
once the cop has the criminal in his hand...its a split second decision. leave him alive for the judiciary...or 'kill' him..! that moment is an encounter for me.
that said...dude...i completely agree with you on the fact that if given the go-ahead...this can easily turn into the police's way of handling personal or political issues. koi pasand nahi aaya...marwaa do..and brand him as a terrorist..!
http://krishnanr.blogspot.com/2007/05/empty-barrels-make-much-noise-aka.html
Slightly different opinions here :)
Post a Comment