Of crime, punishment, and justice

Published : 9 Feb 2013, 01:38 PM
Updated : 9 Feb 2013, 01:38 PM

Reading Time 1 Minute: On March 7, 1971, I then a youth of high school age, marched with many to listen to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman deliver his historic speech at the old Race Course. Not too far from that spot, on February 7, led by the young, citizens gathered at the Shahbagh corner to demand justice for those so summarily killed and violated in 1971. Justice long delayed, and surely it is time. Someone was kind enough to provide a live feed via UStream, and as I watched and heard, the sound of Joy Bangla reverberated the same way it did in 1971. In 1971, I left the gathering thinking about the promise of what was to come. Yesterday's spontaneous outpouring and the call for justice rekindled hope that the youth will once again lead and move us towards the purposefully just society we all once dreamed of.

Reading Time 1 Minute: A few years back, a little girl, Jon Benet Ramsey, was murdered in Colorado, and as information about the murder became public, many suspected that the parents were responsible for the murder. Despite much speculation in the popular media, no one was ever charged with the crime. A few days back, newspapers reported that the evidence against the parents was presented to a grand jury, a collection of citizens. The grand jury decided that there was sufficient evidence against the parents and recommended to the prosecutor that the parents be charged with murder. The prosecutor disagreed, and refused to bring formal charges. The reason was simple: that evidence seen by the citizens is not going to be sufficient to get a conviction in a court of law. The case remains open.  Professional football player O. J. Simpson was declared not guilty of two murders. Public opinion polls showed that over 70% of the people believed he was guilty.

Reading Time 2 Minutes: The crime against one individual, Jon Benet, pales in comparison to the heinous crimes committed against the Bengali people in 1971. And no comparison is intended. However, the process of bringing people accused of crimes to justice remains the same. While we may convict in the court of public opinion, conviction in a court of law is a very different thing.  An opinion expressed in a newspaper may inflame our passion, but without corroborating facts, opinion is hearsay, and hearsay is almost always not admissible in a court of law. So, a court's decision to convict or not to, can be very different that what public opinion demands.  The ICT has been formed, prosecutors and judges appointed, the accused have been given the privilege of defence attorneys, all to ensure that the outcome from the trials is just. Not all outcomes will be to the public's liking, but that is how a well designed system of justice is supposed to work. Otherwise, we could simply try, convict, and mete out punishment according to the will of the public. The public must always be careful not to overstep bounds. Demand justice yes, but be careful demanding someone be beheaded regardless. Such demands may, in the end, make a mockery of the very justice that the public demands.

Reading Time 2 Minutes: Bachchu Razakar was given the death penalty, while Quader Molla, who was convicted crimes no less serious, was given a life sentence. Many have expressed dismay, while others have expressed shock and puzzlement at the seeming inconsistency in the two sentences meted out by the same set of judges. Many have speculated about the reasons behind this inconsistency. Bloggers and opinon makers have said that Jamaat's show of force, judges concerned about their own security, of Awami League reaching some kind of understanding with Jamaat may be behind this inconsistency. Unless the judges themselves come out and clarify the reasoning, we are unlikely to know for sure. But if any of this is true, then justice has suffered. On the other hand, justice will also suffer if the same judges overturn their own decision because of the withering criticism from the public. The rule of law requires that judges make independent decisions after honest deliberation over the evidence at hand. And if judges cannot function with full independence, then the rule of the street takes over, and that's anathema to, what I hope, those who gathered at Shahbagh truly desire. Demand justice yes, but demand the rule of law even more. Demand justice yes, but let the courts decide, on the basis of evidence, who deserves to be hanged and who deserves to live. Demand justice, but most importantly, demand that the rule of law prevail, and demand that all respect the rule of law. Demand that if it a life sentence, then the person be kept in prison for life. Demand that the revolving door be closed.

Reading time 1 Minute: As many promised yesterday, that they will remain vigilant until justice prevails, and those who committed the heinous crimes in 1971 are made to face the consequences of their actions. Twitter dome was alive with that spirit as those in Bangladesh and abroad chimed in with the call for justice.  But as one Twitter, Ms. Anam, wrote:  "The people of Bangladesh stand up for secular politics and an end to the culture of impunity." Spot on, I thought. And it is about this culture of impunity that those assembled at Shahbagh must be vigilant. Justice for the victims of '71, yes, but also justice for all going forward: for the victims of RMG factory fires, for Biswajit, for the passenger who was burnt alive when hooligans set his bus on fire. For those who have very little to begin with. Those who gathered at Shahbagh sent a very strong message to our politicians, the enablers of the culture impunity, by not allowing them to speak at the event. These enablers come from all political walks. Going forward, these enablers must have no doubt that the days of old are over, and that change has come.

Best wishes from many miles away.

————————————–
Muhammad Q. Islam, is an Associate Professor of Economics, John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, USA.