Random Thread

[Double Edge]

Some thing i learned today. India has a handcuff ban except in extreme circumstances. This is why we see cops leading even the most hardened of criminals by the hand if they need to be taken any where.

“Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict `irons’ is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Art. 21. Thus, we must critically examine the justification offered by the State for this mode of restraint. Surely, the competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be harmonized. To prevent the escape of an under trial is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself, be castigated. But to bind a man hand-and- foot fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture.”

Source

2

This stems from its past use during the emergency period and colonial times.

[Oracle]

^ Assumed criminals can only be handcuffed if the District Magistrate deems it fit.

[Double Edge]

^ Assumed criminals can only be handcuffed if the District Magistrate deems it fit.

This is the idea. To remove discretion of the cops and make them ask for permission.

It came as a surprise to me because i don't know of other countries with such a rule. Keeping people in irons could be construed to be torture if it was over an extended period. This usually does not happen in other countries but the cops can use their own discretion whether cuffs are required or not say when transporting convicts.

Reason this point comes up is the Hyderabad 4. Four guys gang rape a veterinarian. Kill her and dump the body. They are apprehended by the cops. A few days later cops take the perps to the scene of the crime to re-enact it and also to recover the victims cell phone. Perps attack the cops, grap pistols and attempt to escape. Next thing we know is all 4 have been shot by the cops in self defence. Rape/murder case closed. Instant justice delivered, given the praise they got from the public.

Whether if they were handcuffed when taken to the scene of the crime this would not have happened in the first place ?

Handcuffed because there is every reason these guys would get the death penalty and use any chance to escape.

[Double Edge]

This would be hilarious if it wasn't true

[Oracle]

This is the idea. To remove discretion of the cops and make them ask for permission.

It came as a surprise to me because i don't know of other countries with such a rule. Keeping people in irons could be construed to be torture if it was over an extended period. This usually does not happen in other countries but the cops can use their own discretion whether cuffs are required or not say when transporting convicts.

Reason this point comes up is the Hyderabad 4. Four guys gang rape a veterinarian. Kill her and dump the body. They are apprehended by the cops. A few days later cops take the perps to the scene of the crime to re-enact it and also to recover the victims cell phone. Perps attack the cops, grap pistols and attempt to escape. Next thing we know is all 4 have been shot by the cops in self defence. Rape/murder case closed. Instant justice delivered, given the praise they got from the public.

Whether if they were handcuffed when taken to the scene of the crime this would not have happened in the first place ?

Handcuffed because there is every reason these guys would get the death penalty and use any chance to escape.

You forgot to mention another point. They burnt her body, possibly with the motive to hide her identity, or even to destroy the physical evidence (her body).

And do you really believe those 4 a-holes attacked the Police party? Whatever, justice has been served. And I am happy with that.

[Oracle]

This would be hilarious if it wasn't true

[ATTACH]48177[/ATTACH]

UN is a joke. Don't know why people keep talking about UN as some sort of a higher pedestal.

[Double Edge]

UN is a joke. Don't know why people keep talking about UN as some sort of a higher pedestal.

Nobody wants WW3 ?

[Double Edge]

You forgot to mention another point. They burnt her body, possibly with the motive to hide her identity, or even to destroy the physical evidence (her body).

Yes they did that.

And do you really believe those 4 a-holes attacked the Police party? Whatever, justice has been served. And I am happy with that.

Until the inquiry concludes i don't know.

But people don't believe it. Which makes it a custodial killing and that is deeply problematic.

Somebody wanting to make this case go away isn't a good enough reason for the bigger problem this kind of thinking will create.

Now people being happy about it is sad but i understand why.

They don't think the Indian justice system delivers.

A very serious problem if we want to maintain law & order.

A very serious problem if enough people think the system does not work.

[Oracle]

Yes they did that.


Until the inquiry concludes i don't know.

But people don't believe it. Which makes it a custodial killing and that is deeply problematic.

Somebody wanting to make this case go away isn't a good enough reason for the bigger problem this kind of thinking will create.

Now people being happy about it is sad but i understand why.

They don't think the Indian justice system delivers.

A very serious problem if we want to maintain law & order.

A very serious problem if enough people think the system does not work.

People have started to believe that the system is not working anymore. In bits and pieces we see it all the time.

[Oracle]

Nobody wants WW3 ?

UN cannot prevent WWIII. The thing you should have asked is who's gonna win WWIII. Countries on the right side of the management would.

[Officer of Engineers]

UN cannot prevent WWIII. The thing you should have asked is who's gonna win WWIII. Countries on the right side of the management would.

Winning is relative. There's only 2 countries capable of fighting WWIII. An exchange of 2000+ nukes ain't going to leave either side dancing with joy with a victory march anywhere. Both sides would be licking their wounds and both sides would be trying to start fixing their country. While the US may have more reduncdant infrastruture than Russia, Russia has an ironman leadership who can make tough choices (ie, who he can let starve and freeze while those he needs may live).

Even if you take China vs the US. While there is a theoritcal chance that China may not be able to hit the US with a nuke (defence shield and pre-emptive strikes and all), the loss of China as a trading partner would throw the world economy into a tail spin and a hell of alot of people are going to lose their jobs and a lot more would starve as those freighters in Chinese ports ain't going to be shipping food.

[Oracle]

Idiots like her should be kicked out from BJP. They bring bloody shame to a National party. Wonder who gives them tickets.

[Oracle]

Winning is relative. There's only 2 countries capable of fighting WWIII. An exchange of 2000+ nukes ain't going to leave either side dancing with joy with a victory march anywhere. Both sides would be licking their wounds and both sides would be trying to start fixing their country. While the US may have more reduncdant infrastruture than Russia, Russia has an ironman leadership who can make tough choices (ie, who he can let starve and freeze while those he needs may live).

Even if you take China vs the US. While there is a theoritcal chance that China may not be able to hit the US with a nuke (defence shield and pre-emptive strikes and all), the loss of China as a trading partner would throw the world economy into a tail spin and a hell of alot of people are going to lose their jobs and a lot more would starve as those freighters in Chinese ports ain't going to be shipping food.

How are you doing, Colonel?

Isn't it inevitable that a clash would occur between a rising power and an established power somewhere in the future? How well, differences are managed so that it doesn't lead to a conflict remains to be seen.

[snapper]

Isn't it inevitable that a clash would occur between a rising power and an established power somewhere in the future?

That, I think is a Thuthdide - an revisionist view of the Peloponnesian war. While his book is (in my view) one of the greatest ever written I do not think even he would argue that it is true of all historical facts that lead to war; the chance shooting of the Habsburg heir caused WW1 and life - and therefore 'historical destiny' has many more affecting layers than just the status quo powers being challenged by a 'noveau riche' challenger.

[Oracle]

^ There is no term as 'Thuthdide". Thucydides Trap - yes, many have written about it. It fits the present world scenario more than anything else. US vs China. Who wins? Is absolute. How will they win? Which way? Trade? War? Psychological effects that breaks up land-masses? I know there is a war coming, even though the good Colonel probably wouldn't agree with me. What happens to all of us during the course of that war, and after is the question. Oh, and Russia will sit out initially. I hope you didn't take to heart my last joke. It was meant to be a joke.