Topic started by pathan (@ host226.co.sanmateo.ca.us) on Tue Jan 29 11:23:32 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Almost all the occasions of my visit to police station in india for reasons like passport inquiry, i have witnessed - policemen beating some of the suspects. Is this legal? If illegal, why so far no magazines talk much about it?

Responses:

• From: S H I T K I C K E R (@ ptil-134-144-ban.primus-india.net) on: Tue Jan 29 11:34:51
  
  Its very difficult to actually tackle this problem. On the one hand Police have to mantain Law & Order and contain Crime. On the other hand people blame the police when goondagiri or crime increases. What would you do if you were a COP?
  
  
• From: pathan (@ host226.co.sanmateo.ca.us) on: Tue Jan 29 12:00:30
  
  hi S--Tkicker, if i have not expressed it clearly, the topic is "does law permit these policemen to beat the suspects?"
  
  
• From: S H I T K I C K E R (@ ptil-134-144-ban.primus-india.net) on: Wed Jan 30 01:24:30
  
  The law DOES provide for the use of a certain amount of force during remand, but its parameters are not defined clearly in most legal systems. The law has been careful to avoid expressing itself clearly on this issue in most countries. The police are expected to refrain from overstepping boundaries that could be construed as Human Rights violations. In some cases it goes overboard. In some cases it is warranted. For e.g. If suspects or acomplices are arrested immediately after a terrorist attack, and the information that is crucial to apprehending the rest of the accomplices is required immediately, what other means of procuring infomation do we have other than use force. The law has to provide for use of force in such cases.
  
  
• From: S H I T K I C K E R (@ ptil-134-144-ban.primus-india.net) on: Wed Jan 30 01:32:44
  
  Especially when it comes to tackling terrorism I would definitely advocate the use of force, severe force. If the use of force was to solve some domestic law and order issue or theft, then it makes sense for the newspapers to highlight the subject. But if the situation is related to international trouble makers, terrorists, disrupters of harmony and the like, then kick A R S E. We have enough problems in this country anyway by way of poverty, hunger, housing and so on. Why should we tolerate trouble from fools from across our borders.
  
  
• From: pathan (@ host191.co.sanmateo.ca.us) on: Wed Jan 30 14:15:18
  
  There are 2 kinds of suspects. 1. who have been caught in the scene of the crime. 2. who have been arrested previously and are suspected under the current case. If we allow policemen to beat the second category to get the information, there is a chance that they agree with policemen to avoid further beatings.
  
  
• From: Tamil Babe (@ rn251-65.resnet.uoguelph.ca) on: Thu Jan 31 09:36:55
  
  What about "innocent till proven guilty"?
  
  
• From: S H I T K I C K E R (@ ptil-134-144-ban.primus-india.net) on: Fri Feb 1 01:26:05
  
  I agree with you that innocent until proven guilty is lawfully the right thing. But in third world countries and some developed countries, this has also helped criminal elements and suspects jump bail, destroy evidence, threaten and supress witnesses and buy out the judiciary. So many murderers, rapists and swindlers are out there scot free continuing their business with impunity. Because the law has allowed them the freedom to do what they like till proven guilty. Will they ever be proven guilty?
  
  

Want to post a response?