Posted by: lakhe July 12, 2009
ANA and AJAY KUMAR DEV. RAPISTS CONVENTION
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        

Rape cases are often lost because of the concrete evidence as semens. That's why they recommend to go for the physical check-up asap. But it can't happen in all the cases. But as you see, that kind of evidence is not possible in this case. But there're number of other facts which can be linked together to convict this rapist. There might not be a forced entry; it might just have been submissive/blackmails. Since the girl was looking for/ having bf;  and she moved out; for me, it shows that she wanted to get over with this adopted father. But this rapist still wanted to continue and didn't allow her having any other relationship and made her go to cops. If you read the original article again, you'll notice that she reported the case not after she ended her relationship with this rapist, but after this rapist came hunting for her even after her move-out. For me, it DOES make sense. She tolerated as much as she could. How many more YEARS do you think they need to spend before convicting this rapist? Sooner he's behind the bars, safer the society is. For me, the DILIGENCE doesn't increase automatically by spending/working longer.


I do agree with you that this thread has been educative. As someone posted the link for another sexual offender, Mr. Sharma, whom ANA lists proudly. In his case also, nepali people didn't believe and more than FIFTY NEPALESE sent the letter supporting him, but the court convict him any way.


Are you proposing that jury needs to be examined by a psychiatrist before sitting in this trial? For me, our country is not less biased with sex; the only difference I observe is closed and open societies. In the current issue of Sadhana, there's a following article about incests taking place in nepalese society; 

http://www.newsofnepal.com/sadhana/2065/sadhana183/garpariwar.htm

the only difference is they don't go to report or are often scolded, suppressed and ridiculed by the society when they speak. I don't think we're doing less by questioning the characters of the victim here. Victim had the burden of proof in this case; victim was also examined by a psychiatrist as jurors mentioned to prove that she's not insane. But the rapist didn't have to go to a lie-detector test. 

"Also, do they have the 'same' job? I think actress has different role than actors, no? If a film has female dominant story with a male sidekick, one can assume she will fetch more--but I am not sure."

That is exactly what these sexists tell when they discriminate for wages among the sexes. These days, female actresses are also doing the stunts, and there may be the movies with the actresses playing the lead roles. But it doesn't count. RULE IS A RULE.

I don't know about brick kilns; I'm talking about the day-laborers for constructions works. Sometimes, women do more work than men; but again rule is a rule; and they argue women do less work. I don't remember the numbers, but I don't count the difference as less. As I mentioned among actors and actresses, it differs by 4-5 times; that's what I read in interviews given by actresses in papers. Would you still consider that as RELATIVELY less?
Read Full Discussion Thread for this article