Enviar búsqueda
Cargar
WhyDoPeopleReactsoDivergentlytoCourtVerdictsinIndia
•
0 recomendaciones
•
209 vistas
A
Arish Ojaswi
Seguir
Denunciar
Compartir
Denunciar
Compartir
1 de 5
Descargar ahora
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Recomendados
Леонид Вересов. Предисловие к сборнику Николая Рубцова «Мачты»
Леонид Вересов. Предисловие к сборнику Николая Рубцова «Мачты»
OpenLibrary35
Перечень платных мероприятий ВОЮБ на 2015 год
Перечень платных мероприятий ВОЮБ на 2015 год
OpenLibrary35
#CMEtf Tweet Fest "Back to School" Campaign 2015 Exec Summary
#CMEtf Tweet Fest "Back to School" Campaign 2015 Exec Summary
Sandra Haas Binford, MAEd
7.ortega maldonado lizeth anahi.actividad7
7.ortega maldonado lizeth anahi.actividad7
LizOrtega23
Дневник Кирилла Антоновича Берёзкина
Дневник Кирилла Антоновича Берёзкина
OpenLibrary35
English law.aplang
English law.aplang
lruroden
Safeguarding Research in South Africa: iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check
Safeguarding Research in South Africa: iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check
Academy of Science of South Africa
Microsocial factors
Microsocial factors
Jess Sarabia
Recomendados
Леонид Вересов. Предисловие к сборнику Николая Рубцова «Мачты»
Леонид Вересов. Предисловие к сборнику Николая Рубцова «Мачты»
OpenLibrary35
Перечень платных мероприятий ВОЮБ на 2015 год
Перечень платных мероприятий ВОЮБ на 2015 год
OpenLibrary35
#CMEtf Tweet Fest "Back to School" Campaign 2015 Exec Summary
#CMEtf Tweet Fest "Back to School" Campaign 2015 Exec Summary
Sandra Haas Binford, MAEd
7.ortega maldonado lizeth anahi.actividad7
7.ortega maldonado lizeth anahi.actividad7
LizOrtega23
Дневник Кирилла Антоновича Берёзкина
Дневник Кирилла Антоновича Берёзкина
OpenLibrary35
English law.aplang
English law.aplang
lruroden
Safeguarding Research in South Africa: iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check
Safeguarding Research in South Africa: iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check
Academy of Science of South Africa
Microsocial factors
Microsocial factors
Jess Sarabia
Cusco corporate presentation august 2016 color
Cusco corporate presentation august 2016 color
Manuel Cordero
Web Fakes
Web Fakes
Matteo Losi
PwC National Accounting Challenge (National Finalist)
PwC National Accounting Challenge (National Finalist)
Richard Cao
LA NARANJA
LA NARANJA
carmenxtv99
Drive4D IntroENG 4-2015
Drive4D IntroENG 4-2015
Itay Alon
INPLANT TRAINING at HCL - Velachery - 9382207007
INPLANT TRAINING at HCL - Velachery - 9382207007
HCL CDC(Division of HCL Learning Ltd)
Review of Video Vibe Pro
Review of Video Vibe Pro
Russell Birtwistle - In Thailand
Question 2
Question 2
sandilands83
Omorfa math
Omorfa math
mar-2015
Nib
Nib
Matteo Botta
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Cusco corporate presentation august 2016 color
Cusco corporate presentation august 2016 color
Manuel Cordero
Web Fakes
Web Fakes
Matteo Losi
PwC National Accounting Challenge (National Finalist)
PwC National Accounting Challenge (National Finalist)
Richard Cao
LA NARANJA
LA NARANJA
carmenxtv99
Drive4D IntroENG 4-2015
Drive4D IntroENG 4-2015
Itay Alon
INPLANT TRAINING at HCL - Velachery - 9382207007
INPLANT TRAINING at HCL - Velachery - 9382207007
HCL CDC(Division of HCL Learning Ltd)
Review of Video Vibe Pro
Review of Video Vibe Pro
Russell Birtwistle - In Thailand
Question 2
Question 2
sandilands83
Omorfa math
Omorfa math
mar-2015
Nib
Nib
Matteo Botta
Destacado
(10)
Cusco corporate presentation august 2016 color
Cusco corporate presentation august 2016 color
Web Fakes
Web Fakes
PwC National Accounting Challenge (National Finalist)
PwC National Accounting Challenge (National Finalist)
LA NARANJA
LA NARANJA
Drive4D IntroENG 4-2015
Drive4D IntroENG 4-2015
INPLANT TRAINING at HCL - Velachery - 9382207007
INPLANT TRAINING at HCL - Velachery - 9382207007
Review of Video Vibe Pro
Review of Video Vibe Pro
Question 2
Question 2
Omorfa math
Omorfa math
Nib
Nib
WhyDoPeopleReactsoDivergentlytoCourtVerdictsinIndia
1.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 1 Why Do People React so Divergently to Court Verdicts in India? Two Psychological Possibilities by Arish Ojaswi Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad cs13b1005@iith.ac.in June 10, 2015 Introduction The Indian Constitution ensures independence of the Judiciary from the other branches of the government. This is intended to stop unnecessary influence from the other parts of the government or powerful citizens. To me and all other citizens also, equality in administration of the law is a sine qua non of any democratic society. Sadly, the rich vs. poor divide still prevails in the justice system of India. Over the past decades, there have been instances where the impartiality of the Indian Judiciary has seemingly come into question. For example, celebrities from movies or politics usually get away scotfree after being arrested or sentenced for drunken driving or engaging in corrupt practices. Further, large corporations drag on lawsuits so long that the smaller businesses or plaintiffs either run out of money or give up the case. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), among its essential values, states: “impartiality, not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made” (p. 3). However, money in a court of law results in compromise of these standards. Personal biases among judges also lead them to favour the rich and powerful for several reasons. First, the judges associate themselves more with people of their own high economic class than with the poor. Second, defending the powerful opens the tacit possibility of a much larger quid pro quo than defending the poor or the unknown. I illustrate below these problems from opinions expressed in the social media.
2.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 2 Salman Khan’s 2002 Case of HitandRun On September 28, 2002, Salman Khan’s Toyota Land Cruiser drove over a footpath and into the wall of a bakery in the middle of the night, killing one and injuring four others in Mumbai. Khan’s bodyguard and police constable, Ravindra Patil filed a First Information Report (FIR) of the incident to the police. Patil later stated that Salman had been driving under the influence of alcohol and had ignored his advice to drive slowly. In the midst of witness examination in 2006, Patil stopped attending court hearings because he did not want to face the defence lawyer. An arrest warrant was issued for Patil because of his absence from court hearings. He was sacked from his job as a policeman, and incarcerated in solitary confinement at Arthur Road Jail as if he were a highprofile criminal! Despite such obvious pressure, Patil stuck to his original statement until he died in 2007. Twelve years later, Salman’s family driver Ashok Singh claimed that he was driving the car, and that the accident was because of a burst tyre. Salman agreed with Singh, denying that he was under the influence of alcohol when the accident occurred. Salman’s lawyer accused Patil to have lied. Later on, blood samples taken from Salman after the incident suggested that Salman had actually consumed a high volume of alcohol. The Mumbai Sessions Court found Salman guilty of all charges. When the prosecution sought the maximum punishment of ten years, Salman and his lawyer pleaded a lesser sentence in view of his humanitarian work. Salman’s lawyer argued that Salman had paid Rupees nineteen lakh as compensation to the victims and “would do more if ordered.” Salman committed blatant perjury by presenting false evidence, and accused the doctor of falsifying his blood report. The only motivation for Salman doing so could have been the certainty in his mind that he might be acquitted of the charges any way. He perhaps believed that the court would rule in his favour. Had he considered the possibility of conviction, he might not have lied under oath. Contrary to his assumptions, however, the Mumbai Sessions Court convicted him of all charges and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000. The doubt against our justice system arose because the Bombay High Court suspended his sentence on the same evening and granted him bail on the third day. The public were up in their arms, and their reactions in the media are the topics of my study. Public Opinions Criminal proceedings against any Bollywood celebrity have always been topics of hot debate across the nation: Be it Sanjay Dutt’s illegal possession of weapons, Shiney
3.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 3 Ahuja’s sexually assaulting his domestic help, or Salman Khan’s blackbuck killing and hitandrun. While some want justice, others come on streets in support of the accused. When Dutt was sentenced to five years in prison, for example, several filmmakers filed petitions to delay his sentence to enable him complete his ongoing films. I list below how people expressed diverse opinions on the judgement of the Sessions Court. While some concurred with the decision, others questioned the severity of punishment. Importantly, there was a lot of sympathy from the Bollywood fraternity. To me, such diversity in opinions leads to a hypothesis that no one is fair and objective, worthy of a psychological inquiry. Those who supported court’s judgment of conviction Most middleclass people supported Salman’s conviction, arguing that Salman should be treated like any other accused rather than a Bollywood celebrity. A few celebrities publicly acknowledged Salman’s guilt and tweeted as follows: “People seem kinda sad about Salman khan being convicted:how about directing sadness to the ones who lost a family member or DIED? #justice” Theatre Director Nida Butt (@nidabutt9), 12:00 PM 6 May 2015 “Would #SalmanKhan ever hit & run as a movie hero. I don't think so. #SalmanVerdict” Musician Salman Ahmad (@sufisal), 2:24 PM 6 May 2015 Those who supported Salman’s acquittal but did not openly oppose court’s decision Although the entire Bollywood fraternity expressed emotional support for Salman, a few of them did openly disagree with the court’s decision. Those who appeared diplomatic in their expressions of opinions on the conviction were trying to avoid repercussions of public contempt of the court’s decision. “It would be inappropriate to comment on the court's decision but my thoughts and prayers are with Salman bhai and his family.” Actress Soha Ali Khan (@sakpataudi), 3:08 PM 6 May 2015
4.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 4 “Not commenting on courts verdict but my heart goes out 2 @BeingSalmanKhan :largehearted & 1 of d finest people I hv met in this industry.” ActorRiteishDeshmukh (@Riteishd), 12:07 PM 6 May 2015 “I won't comment on the courts judgement. But salman Bhai has the biggest heart and is the most helpful person in this industry” Actor Varun Dhawan (@Varun_dvn), 12:29 PM 6 May 2015 Those who questioned the conviction There were a few people who could not hold back their opinions, pledging strong support for Salman’s innocence. Surprisingly, some went to the extent of blaming the victims themselves. “Suicide is crime so is sleeping on footpath..80% homeles film ppl strugld achievd stardom but never slept on footpath @BeingSalmanKhan” Singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya (@abhijeetsinger), 1:59PM 6 May 2015 “Kutta rd pe soyega kutte ki maut marega, roads garib ke baap ki nahi hai I ws homles an year nvr slept on rd”(Translate: If a dog sleeps on the road, it will die like a dog. The roads do not belong to the fathers of the poor. I was homeless for a year, but never slept on the road.) Singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya (@abhijeetsinger), 11:29 AM May 6, 2015 “The govt should be responsible for housing ppl.If no 1was sleeping on d road in any other country Salman wuld not have driven over anybody.” Jewellery Designer Farah Khan Ali (@FarahKhanAli), 1:00 AM 6 May 2015
5.
Reactions to Court Verdicts 5 “It doesn't matter what anyone or any court says he doesn't deserve this at any level...” Actor Arjun Kapoor (@arjunk26), 12:49 PM 6 May 2015 Two Hypotheses for Divergent Opinions Information asymmetry: For a huge majority of people, the only source of information on the Salman Khan case has been the media reports. Most of them did not have any contact with either the accused or the court. Thus, information available to the judge and the public might not have been the same. Given that people react to whatever information is readily available to them, I propose that information asymmetry can be a reasonable hypothesis for the divergent views cited earlier. Attitudes as anchors: We perceive things as we are, not as they are. Why? Right from our childhood, we form attitudes about people and events. Once favourable or unfavourable attitudes are formed, they serve as anchor against which incoming information adjusted. I hypothesized that people expressing divergent views were adjusting the information about conviction or suspension of sentence against their already formed attitude of Salman Khan. While those with favourable attitude towards Salman discounted the conviction, those with favourable attitude toward justice and/or victims discounted any claim of innocence. By discounting I mean assigning less importance to the information available than our existing attitudes. Those who took a neutral or diplomatic stance might have weighed both the information available and their existing pro or contra attitude towards the case rather equally. In sum, both the hypotheses of information asymmetry and anchoring of information against preexisting attitudes can be via explanations of divergent opinions not only about Salman Khan’s case but also about cases of Jayalalithaa or Lalu Prasad Yadav. The challenge now lies in devising an experiment that might test which of the two hypotheses has better merit. Acknowledgements This report was prepared under the tutelage of Professor Ramadhar Singh during my MayJune Internship at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. I am grateful to the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore for providing me with the opportunity to be mentored by Professor Singh. I also thank Dr. Naureen Bhullar, Ms. Krithiga Sankaran, and Ms. Namratha for their assistance during my internship. The interpretations made are mine.
Descargar ahora