Early Judgments Are Good But They Should Not Be Done In Haste

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ goes age-old adage. At the same time, one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is that it is better to let 10 guilty persons escape than subject an innocent person to suffering. This doctrine was ascribed way back in 1769 by William Blackstone and still remains applicable. It is presupposed that any ratio presented should not be taken to indicate that it is worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty one. An interpretation that is adequate is the one delivered during a case in 1895 by the US Supreme Court, which stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” Incidentally, the roots for this doctrine date back to the Roman Empire. From the perspective of the victim and the layman, it is always ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. They always want what they presume is justice to be delivered promptly, almost instantly. But investigations often take time and judiciary needs time to look at things holistically- from all aspects, from all corners, before pronouncing a judgement, so as to ensure that no innocent is punished.

So is there a fallacy? Is there a conflict? Well, there often is. The biggest challenge is in striking a balance. You cannot delay justice for far too long.

In the name of delivering justice, you cannot overlook certain aspects and pronounce judgement in haste either because it could possibly lead to punishing an innocent person. Media trials and more recently, social media trials, often stand in the way of striking a balance between these two. Consider, for instance, what’s happening in Bengal now.

The so-called ‘civic society’ is out on the streets demanding justice in the alleged ‘rape and murder case’ of a young doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. The nationwide outcry is putting enormous pressure on the authorities to deliver justice immediately, even though it not an ‘open and shut case’.

It is quite a complicated one and all loose ends will have to be tied by the investigators. And till then all concerned institutes will have to turn a blind eye to all media and social media trials. One has to keep in mind that if something goes wrong in the process of delivering justice, in the name of being prompt and fast, the same trials will take a dramatic twist and it will be weaved around the unsubstantiated in the process.

Commoners, often instigated and provoked by a section of irresponsible politicians, can afford to change the narratives and shift the goal post, but ‘justice’ cannot be gone about in that manner. It is important to ensure that justice is neither delayed, nor denied.

It is important to ensure that an innocent is not punished, traumatised or devastated by media and social media trials been before the court deliver their verdict. What is most important is to ensure that ‘justice’ is rightly and properly delivered.