Not all mistakes we commit, come under the purview of the local legal system.
When they do, however, you are governed by them and there is a price to pay. Sanjay Dutt got to know that amount yesterday – six years of RI. While he seems to have a glimmer of hope with the Supreme Court, the meting out of the sentence itself must have been a moment of devastation. Such is the nature of hope, often. Yet hope is a bad customer, when dealing with death.
Apparently, all’s fine in the land of the much-delayed judicial system in the country. Apparently.
In a public court, you stand covered and protected by well-wishers and your legal counsel. What do you do in your own court? What about the crimes you committed for which there isn’t a penal code? For the hearts that you broke, for the lies you got away with. The harshness or the softness of the sentence is yours to mete out. Is that a conflict of interest when you are the criminal and you are the judge?
Depends – will you be more the judge or more the criminal? Where will your loyalty lie? And in being either, won’t you have a context to pronouncing the judgement? Won’t you have the context of being righteous, the context of being sensitive or the context of being politically correct?
And then, this.
The ultimate definition of work-life balance, the desegregation of professional and personal life; I once said the same thing to a person – don’t lose faith in yourself. The punishment and the motivating words contradict to a large extent – you can believe in either. Not both. I see that the person now lives by the applicable penal code. The defined standard is a known evil – recognisable, defendable. The motivating words have no standards – erratic, devoid of substance, undependable.
Where standard penal codes don’t apply, it is better to be human. Where they do, it is better not to be.