October 9, 2015 No.1
https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153076131901922
The Nanavati case ----- why Jurors said not guilty, and why Jawaharlal Ghazi , Supreme judges, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs, and SCjs used that to kill Jury System in India.
.
The paid-intellectuals in India say that the Jurors in Nanavati case gave "wrong" judgment. After all, Nanavati himself had admitted that he had shot the victim. And yet, the Jurors said "not guilty" !!! Further, paid-intellectuals say that that Jury's judgment was the reason why then PM Jawaharlal Ghazi, each and every Congress / Jansangh / CPI MP and all Supreme / High judges unanimously agreed to end Jury Trial and decide that the judgments should be given ONLY by judges " !!!
.
First, IMO, the Jurors were "right". I mean, almost all of you, if you were in that Jury, would have said "NOT GUILTY" !!! At least, I would have said "not guilty" !! And second, the reason why PM Jawaharlal Ghazi , Supreme judges, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs, and SCjs killed Jury System was NOT Nanavati case. That was ONLY an excuse. The real reason was to protect criminals hired by Landlords to stop landless from approaching courts !!!
.
So why did Jurors said "not guilty" in Nanavati case?
.
===========
.
About the case
------------------
Back in 1950s, commercial sex was 100% legal !!! And back in 1950s , there were no pills, abortions were unsafe / expensive / rare and there were no DNA / blood tests to determine paternity. So adultery was considered as worse than murder, terrorism , acid throwing etc, Pls note -- back then adultery was considered worse than murder , terrorism , acid throwing. Because if an extramarital affair is there in 1950s, since there were no pills etc and abortions were rare, there was a high chance of child birth. And there were no blood / DNA test to know paternity. And so the husband will keep thinking that it is his child for whole life, and face a betrayal. IOW, extra marital affair in 1950s was an affair plus serious misinformation plus serious betrayal. Today, extra marital affair is just affair, the chances of child birth are less, and chances of betrayal given the DNA tests are even rare. So today if you think that adultery doesnt deserve death, it is another issue. But back then, most people believed that adultery deserved death. So while judging the Nanavati case, please note that back than, adultery was considered as worse than murder, terrorism , acid throwing
.
Now the murder victim, Mr. Ahuja was a serial HABITUAL adulterer. So if such person dies,. instead of crying murder , most people would back then have said "good riddance".
.
eg How would you react to if some terrorist like Kasab were to get encountered = murdered by policemen? Would you scream "murder, murder , hang the cop" or would you say "good riddance , well done" ? To cite a real example, one Andhra Pradesh PI encountered a person who had thrown acid on a girl. Next day, all college students honored him with gifts, and he was chief guest in that year's annual function in that college !!! Not many, spare the paid-human-right-activists, shouted "murder , murder , hang the PI".
.
Now Nanavati was from very rich family and yet he joined Navy. Citizens have respect for soldiers, and when a rich kid joins Military, the respect doubles. And the crime was not was NOT crime for money, but crime out of anger.
.
======
.
Now say YOU were the Juror in the case
-------------------------------------------------
.
Question-1 : if YOU were in Jury, which sentence would YOU impose
,.
(1a). Hang Nanavti for killing the serial habital adulterer Ahuja
.
(1b). Three years or five years or seven years or 10 years or 20 years in prison
.
(1c). Not guilty . Acquittal
.
NO OTHER OPTIONS.
.
What is YOUR decision if you were in Jury?
.
Please read next para ONLY after answering above Q
.
---
.
Question-2 : So if YOU were in Jury, and you have ONLY two choices
,.
(2a) Hang Nanavti for killing the serial habital adulterer Ahuja
.
(2b) Not guilty . Acquit Nanavati
.
NO OTHER OPTIONS.
.
What is YOUR decision if you were in Jury?
.
Please read next para ONLY after answering above Q
.
=======
.
I cant say for all. I must have asked this TWO questions to over 100 persons in past 17 years of my campaigning to end judge system in India, and bring Jury System in India. All 100 gave me following answers
.
Answer to Q1 : (1b) 5 to 10 years in prison
.
Answer to Q1 : (2b) Not guilty . Acquit Nanavati !!
,.
IOW, when three options were given , almost all picked option of some imprisonment of few years. But when I gave ONLY two options --- Hang Nanavati or acquit, almost all took option of acquittal. Because Captain Nanavati was honarable man, and because Ahuja, by standard of those days, was some "acid thrower".
.
Now in the Jury System I have proposed, the Jurors decide the length of imprisonment. How? Say there are 51 Jurors. If 35 of them, i.e one more than 2/3rd , decide for death penalty, then case will go for retrial. If 18 or more disapprove death penalty, then next step will be to decide length of imprisonment. Then each Jurors will cite number of months of prison sentence he proposes. 0 will mean acquit and 1200 will mean life. The numbers will be arranged in DECREASING order i.e. highest first and lowerst last. And 34th number will be length of punihsmnet. i.e. punishment approved by (2/3rd + 1) Jurors.
.
But in back in 1950s, Jurors had ONLY two choices ---- guilty or acquit !!
.
And if Jurors in Nanavati case had said "guilty" then , chances were high that the judge would have hanged Nanavati. And Jurors fear were not baseless. In the retrail , which judge only trial and no Jury Trial, the judge did order death sentence !!! .
.
So IMO, Jurors could have given him a few years of imprisonment. But that was NOT an option they had. The system back them gave them ONLY two choices --- say "Nanavati is guilty" which can possibly mean that he will be hanged, or say "Nanavati is not guilty" , if you want Nanavati not be hanged.
.
If I were in Jury , I would have said "3 years in prison". But if I were given ONLY two choices, "risk his hanging" OR "acquit him",. I would have said "acquit Nanavati".
.
Please decide you answers again.
.
So IMO, Jurors did the right thing, within the choices they had,. The solution was to enable Jurors to decide the length of imprisonment.
.
=======
.
Now every paid-intellectual in India screamed "see, (sic) Indians are irrational and they should NOT be allowed to decide the cases, and only judges should be allowed to decide the case" etc etc. Every Congress / Jansangh / CPI MP back then demanded end of Jury System in India. So Jawaharlal Ghazi printed Gazette Notification to end Jury Trial in India, and SCjs signed it !! And
.
====
.
But Nanavati case was NOT the motive why Jawaharlal Ghazi , SCjs, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs wanted to kill Jury System India. The reason was --- protect landlords.
.
Due to pressure of ordinary workers of Congress / CPI / Jansangh , the MPs were forced to print law-drafts to end landlord system prevailing in those days. So landless were approaching courts, and getting judgments in their favor. So landlords started using criminals to stop them from approaching courts. So Jurors started imprisoning the criminals. And so criminals stopped working for landlords, and landlords started losing lands.
.
And so Jawaharlal Ghazi, SCjs, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs kill Jury System, so that judges can now acquit landlords' criminals, and so criminals will now again work for landlords, and this landlords can save their plots !!!
.
Otherwise, if argument is "one Jury was wrong, so kill Jury System" , then "one judge takes bribe, end judge system" would also apply. Neither arguments have any worth.
.
The main plus point of Jury System over judge system is that over 95% judges develop nexuses with lawyers, apex criminals, elitemen etc. And judges are also scared of people who can suspend / transfer them, and give favorable judgment to those who can manage their promotions. So judge systems across world has been ridden with corruption / nepotism. And Jury System remains free from nexuses.
.
So my point is
.
.1. Jurors in Nanavati case took the less bad of the two choices they had --- and most of you, if you were in Jury in 1950s, would have done the same.
.
2. Nanavati case was just as excuse. The elitemen and their puppet MPs in Congress / Jansangh/ CPI wanted to kill Jury System in India, and they took Nanavati case as excuse.
https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153076131901922
The Nanavati case ----- why Jurors said not guilty, and why Jawaharlal Ghazi , Supreme judges, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs, and SCjs used that to kill Jury System in India.
.
The paid-intellectuals in India say that the Jurors in Nanavati case gave "wrong" judgment. After all, Nanavati himself had admitted that he had shot the victim. And yet, the Jurors said "not guilty" !!! Further, paid-intellectuals say that that Jury's judgment was the reason why then PM Jawaharlal Ghazi, each and every Congress / Jansangh / CPI MP and all Supreme / High judges unanimously agreed to end Jury Trial and decide that the judgments should be given ONLY by judges " !!!
.
First, IMO, the Jurors were "right". I mean, almost all of you, if you were in that Jury, would have said "NOT GUILTY" !!! At least, I would have said "not guilty" !! And second, the reason why PM Jawaharlal Ghazi , Supreme judges, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs, and SCjs killed Jury System was NOT Nanavati case. That was ONLY an excuse. The real reason was to protect criminals hired by Landlords to stop landless from approaching courts !!!
.
So why did Jurors said "not guilty" in Nanavati case?
.
===========
.
About the case
------------------
Back in 1950s, commercial sex was 100% legal !!! And back in 1950s , there were no pills, abortions were unsafe / expensive / rare and there were no DNA / blood tests to determine paternity. So adultery was considered as worse than murder, terrorism , acid throwing etc, Pls note -- back then adultery was considered worse than murder , terrorism , acid throwing. Because if an extramarital affair is there in 1950s, since there were no pills etc and abortions were rare, there was a high chance of child birth. And there were no blood / DNA test to know paternity. And so the husband will keep thinking that it is his child for whole life, and face a betrayal. IOW, extra marital affair in 1950s was an affair plus serious misinformation plus serious betrayal. Today, extra marital affair is just affair, the chances of child birth are less, and chances of betrayal given the DNA tests are even rare. So today if you think that adultery doesnt deserve death, it is another issue. But back then, most people believed that adultery deserved death. So while judging the Nanavati case, please note that back than, adultery was considered as worse than murder, terrorism , acid throwing
.
Now the murder victim, Mr. Ahuja was a serial HABITUAL adulterer. So if such person dies,. instead of crying murder , most people would back then have said "good riddance".
.
eg How would you react to if some terrorist like Kasab were to get encountered = murdered by policemen? Would you scream "murder, murder , hang the cop" or would you say "good riddance , well done" ? To cite a real example, one Andhra Pradesh PI encountered a person who had thrown acid on a girl. Next day, all college students honored him with gifts, and he was chief guest in that year's annual function in that college !!! Not many, spare the paid-human-right-activists, shouted "murder , murder , hang the PI".
.
Now Nanavati was from very rich family and yet he joined Navy. Citizens have respect for soldiers, and when a rich kid joins Military, the respect doubles. And the crime was not was NOT crime for money, but crime out of anger.
.
======
.
Now say YOU were the Juror in the case
-------------------------------------------------
.
Question-1 : if YOU were in Jury, which sentence would YOU impose
,.
(1a). Hang Nanavti for killing the serial habital adulterer Ahuja
.
(1b). Three years or five years or seven years or 10 years or 20 years in prison
.
(1c). Not guilty . Acquittal
.
NO OTHER OPTIONS.
.
What is YOUR decision if you were in Jury?
.
Please read next para ONLY after answering above Q
.
---
.
Question-2 : So if YOU were in Jury, and you have ONLY two choices
,.
(2a) Hang Nanavti for killing the serial habital adulterer Ahuja
.
(2b) Not guilty . Acquit Nanavati
.
NO OTHER OPTIONS.
.
What is YOUR decision if you were in Jury?
.
Please read next para ONLY after answering above Q
.
=======
.
I cant say for all. I must have asked this TWO questions to over 100 persons in past 17 years of my campaigning to end judge system in India, and bring Jury System in India. All 100 gave me following answers
.
Answer to Q1 : (1b) 5 to 10 years in prison
.
Answer to Q1 : (2b) Not guilty . Acquit Nanavati !!
,.
IOW, when three options were given , almost all picked option of some imprisonment of few years. But when I gave ONLY two options --- Hang Nanavati or acquit, almost all took option of acquittal. Because Captain Nanavati was honarable man, and because Ahuja, by standard of those days, was some "acid thrower".
.
Now in the Jury System I have proposed, the Jurors decide the length of imprisonment. How? Say there are 51 Jurors. If 35 of them, i.e one more than 2/3rd , decide for death penalty, then case will go for retrial. If 18 or more disapprove death penalty, then next step will be to decide length of imprisonment. Then each Jurors will cite number of months of prison sentence he proposes. 0 will mean acquit and 1200 will mean life. The numbers will be arranged in DECREASING order i.e. highest first and lowerst last. And 34th number will be length of punihsmnet. i.e. punishment approved by (2/3rd + 1) Jurors.
.
But in back in 1950s, Jurors had ONLY two choices ---- guilty or acquit !!
.
And if Jurors in Nanavati case had said "guilty" then , chances were high that the judge would have hanged Nanavati. And Jurors fear were not baseless. In the retrail , which judge only trial and no Jury Trial, the judge did order death sentence !!! .
.
So IMO, Jurors could have given him a few years of imprisonment. But that was NOT an option they had. The system back them gave them ONLY two choices --- say "Nanavati is guilty" which can possibly mean that he will be hanged, or say "Nanavati is not guilty" , if you want Nanavati not be hanged.
.
If I were in Jury , I would have said "3 years in prison". But if I were given ONLY two choices, "risk his hanging" OR "acquit him",. I would have said "acquit Nanavati".
.
Please decide you answers again.
.
So IMO, Jurors did the right thing, within the choices they had,. The solution was to enable Jurors to decide the length of imprisonment.
.
=======
.
Now every paid-intellectual in India screamed "see, (sic) Indians are irrational and they should NOT be allowed to decide the cases, and only judges should be allowed to decide the case" etc etc. Every Congress / Jansangh / CPI MP back then demanded end of Jury System in India. So Jawaharlal Ghazi printed Gazette Notification to end Jury Trial in India, and SCjs signed it !! And
.
====
.
But Nanavati case was NOT the motive why Jawaharlal Ghazi , SCjs, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs wanted to kill Jury System India. The reason was --- protect landlords.
.
Due to pressure of ordinary workers of Congress / CPI / Jansangh , the MPs were forced to print law-drafts to end landlord system prevailing in those days. So landless were approaching courts, and getting judgments in their favor. So landlords started using criminals to stop them from approaching courts. So Jurors started imprisoning the criminals. And so criminals stopped working for landlords, and landlords started losing lands.
.
And so Jawaharlal Ghazi, SCjs, Congress / Jansangh / CPI MPs kill Jury System, so that judges can now acquit landlords' criminals, and so criminals will now again work for landlords, and this landlords can save their plots !!!
.
Otherwise, if argument is "one Jury was wrong, so kill Jury System" , then "one judge takes bribe, end judge system" would also apply. Neither arguments have any worth.
.
The main plus point of Jury System over judge system is that over 95% judges develop nexuses with lawyers, apex criminals, elitemen etc. And judges are also scared of people who can suspend / transfer them, and give favorable judgment to those who can manage their promotions. So judge systems across world has been ridden with corruption / nepotism. And Jury System remains free from nexuses.
.
So my point is
.
.1. Jurors in Nanavati case took the less bad of the two choices they had --- and most of you, if you were in Jury in 1950s, would have done the same.
.
2. Nanavati case was just as excuse. The elitemen and their puppet MPs in Congress / Jansangh/ CPI wanted to kill Jury System in India, and they took Nanavati case as excuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment