I think zingo is talking about the 1 bn scantily clad females who are Gandhi’s followers: “He was pained at heart, for he felt strongly for his poor countrymen. Though he was always simple in his dress, he decided to be simpler still. He gave up wearing a cap, a shirt and a dhoti too! Henceforth he wore only a lion-cloth. How could he wear so many clothes, when his countrymen couldn’t get the bare minimum to protect their modesty?”

I think this is a wise strategy. Become a Gandhian, wear less clothing, make more money. Alas! males don’t have that option.

now, if you still think me worthy, do tell me of those billion followers.

I think that just deserts requires that those with natural abilities should be given powerful incentives to not engage in criminal behavior.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx, 1875

So also, I think, that the punishment should fit not just the crime but the profile of the criminal. For the same crime, the severity of the punishment should be determined by how visible in society the criminal is………….So therefore, for the same crime, a celebrity should be punished more severely than an unknown person.”>

I found this entire section rather repulsive, and frankly, very unlike you. My gut-level reaction was along the lines of “wtf sounds like commie reasoning”

Regarding the externalities you speak of, as well as the rewards for good and noble acts – the crux of the matter is that the law does not confer either of these; the market does. It only makes sense then that the market should have the freedom to take these away and not the law. Simply put, the law does not mandate that Tabloid X has to write about MovieStar Y donating to charity. Tabloid X decides based on market forces. Given this, there is no reason for the law not to be agnostic to the celebrity status of a wrongdoer.

Moving on to your arguments regarding celebrities and politicians being relatively immune to prosecution, we can surely identify these to be implementation failures, not system design failures. Or at the least, these are not due to failures in our laws themselves.

I found this entire section rather repulsive, and frankly, very unlike you. My gut-level reaction was along the lines of “wtf sounds like commie reasoning”

Regarding the externalities you speak of, as well as the rewards for good and noble acts – the crux of the matter is that the law does not confer either of these; the market does. It only makes sense then that the market should have the freedom to take these away and not the law. Simply put, the law does not mandate that Tabloid X has to write about MovieStar Y donating to charity. Tabloid X decides based on market forces. Given this, there is no reason for the law not to be agnostic to the celebrity status of a wrongdoer.

Moving on to your arguments regarding celebrities and politicians being relatively immune to prosecution, we can surely identify these to be implementation failures, not system design failures. Or at the least, these are not due to failures in our laws themselves.

Link to Article

[...]

Yes, justice delayed is justice denied. But that is when you are seeking relief for an injury done to you. Justice was denied to the victims of the terrorist acts by delaying it; it was not that the terrorists who were hell-bent on seeking justice.

Sure. That is the point I was making. Not only to the victims, but also for society as a whole, which lost an opportunity to deter potential criminals by punishing them promptly.

[As an aside: I'm not quite sure whether the economic value of punishing a younger person is accurate in this context. (a) Bollywood stars were not as well paid then, as now, in real terms (b) Older actors may make more money (Exhibit A: I'll-never-retire Mr Bachchan). ]

It’s stupid to even comment on things where facts are so hard to come by or what we consider facts are only the picture media puts in front of you.

Second why bring Mahatma Gandhi in to picture? He has more than Billion followers all over world, so someone like you commenting on him especially with a negative tone is like a smelly rat spitting at a grand elephant. It does not matter and tells more about you than the man.

Gosh I never expected you would disappoint with such astronomical stupidity.
One less reader for you, I understand that you are not bothered.

Brutal.

Well, regardless of what they say or how they try to spin it, he’s got to serve his time. And I say thank goodness for that.

I don’t think the punishment has to be proportional to how famous you are. It seems a very folksy idea and I am not sure there is too much merit in it. Isn’t the point to punishment to (ideally) reform the individual? It isn’t about societal retribution.

In our country there are documented cases of people spending decades in prison undertrial. In that context 14 years for 250+ people doesn’t seem all that bad. What I do hope is that they get on with wrapping up the case with those accused of the riots that triggered the blasts. I’m getting tired of the “Bal Thackerey is immune” brigade.