Final Judgements

I used to be quite a television addict at one time – puberty definitely wasn’t easy for me, and television was my refuge…anyways right from the age of 11, it’s been the crime-based shows and legal dramas that held my attention and appealed to my intelligence, atleast what little there is of it! ;-) So apart from my share of Beverly Hills-90210, Doogie Howser, Wonder Years (I can still watch this with the same fascination as I first did) and Remington Steele (this too, just for that hottie Brosnan!) – I devoured a load of legal dramas, to the point that I’d contemplated a career in law at one time. I dropped the idea because of 2 reasons – I knew I’d never be able to memorise the laws and I had serious doubts about my capacity to argue my case with Tom, Dick and Harry and come out the winner.

Anyways as usual I’ve digressed from the main point that I wanted to make (Yep I’d definitely not make a good lawyer!)…over the years I’ve followed L.A.Law, Street Legal, and some others…off late I’ve been following only 2 shows religiously –Law and Order and The Practice . This week’s episode of The Practice was one of their most thought-provoking episodes.

Ellen, one of the leading lawyers in the firm, is fighting the case of a murderer on death-row. The perpetrator was suffering from schizophrenia at the time she murdered 2 young boys. She was diagnosed as mentally sane at the time of trial but later it was discovered that she was schizophrenic, and when given adequate medication she not only reformed, she turned into a role model. The point, thus being, that she was not mentally fit at the time of crime, thus can not be held responsible for her actions and shouldn’t be punished so severely for it. In U.S.A you can not execute an insane person, so Ellen makes her temporarily go off her medication – the judge rules that the State can not “force-medicate” her and that she won’t be executed as long as she is “insane.” Ellen returns with an argument that execution is reserved for the “most” heinous and evil of crimes, and this crime was not one of those. So why the death penalty? She goes on to argue that violence should not be paid back with violence. And that mercy was one of the greatest virtues of mankind – and that is what should be promoted. Everybody, deserves mercy, even murderers.

Do they? Is it really possible to forgive someone who has raped and/or murdered someone you love? Do they deserve to be pardoned for their crimes? Don’t the family members of victims deserve closure of some kind? Or is the desire to see the perpetrator punished/executed an aspect of the blood-thirstiness of mankind? Frankly I couldn’t come up with any satisfactory answers.

The episode ended with the defendant’s death penalty being stayed, on the grounds of mental instability at the time of crime…

On a different note, I saw Yuva last night. An excellent movie, with great acting by each of the leading actors. You note, I say "actors" – the absolute marginalization of actresses and their use as mere decorative objects disappointed me. The movie would have been much more satisfying had even one of the 3 actresses been given centre-stage. It was like saying that the responsibility of turning things around in Indian Politics lies in the hands of the male youth of the country, and all that the women can do, is support their man, provide good food for him when he returns at the end of the day, tired and disgusted with the system, not to mention good sex! Behind every successful man is a woman – and that’s where she is to stay – behind the scenes?