When the Courts are Not Perfect
BY: KAPILA
Jul 06, EUROPE (SUN) — I am quite pleased to note that Vishnugada Prabhu agrees with some of the points I have made. In particular, that the CPO provides an important function in our society when it comes to prevention, education, and facilitating prosecution of child abuse.
In suggesting that I have argued with straw men and a parade of horribles, he has, however, misrepresented my argument, and my point.
When I mentioned meat eaters living on temple property as devotees (as opposed to simply chanting, visiting, interacting, learning- which are all welcome), I was making a very clear point that this behaviour is explicitly not an illegal behaviour in any country. And therefore, this person would not meet the situation Vishnugada Prabhu describes:
"This is an absurd proposition, since I support restrictions and other preventive functions for properly convicted child abusers."
My point is that they would not be properly convicted. My point is that they would not be convicted at all. Which leads us to a dynamic in which the courts have failed to take care of something that we hold as important. So I wasn't parading anything, I was drawing a more appropriate analogy.
Of course, I do also agree with Vishnugada that there must be a system to avoid false accusations. Again, my analogy of the meat eater is apt. Any society in which such accusations can create difficulties is going to be prone to abuse. That cannot be disputed. But does it mean we can rely on the courts to take care of us? Absolutely not.
It does mean we need to strengthen our procedures and ensure that we are making fair evaluations, that there are chances for rebuttal etc. However, this raises some interesting points.
Lets deal with the heart of the matter. Vishnugada Prabhu is stating as an absolute fact that Vakresvara Pandit is falsely convicted. It is what he believes. Having failed to persuade the CPO that this is the case, through all it's various (however imperfect), procedures, he is now attacking the CPO itself.
Now, I can't claim to know more about the case than others do, but I have always understood that the case was taken forward with good reason and that the CPO conviction is solid.
And what I do know, is that in many, many circumstances, the victim of child abuse does not want to testify in court. As Sanaka mentioned, this happened here in the UK. Now this is a situation I am much more familiar with. There were three victims, all of whom I know personally, all of whom can corroborate the others' stories. There was no criminal conviction, in large part because the victims typically just want to move on with their lives and not get raked through the courts. Sometimes they don't want to cause so much pain to the abuser as a period in jail.
Thankfully, rather than having to seek vigilante justice, the CPO has dealt with this case as best it can, and for the betterment of society. The person who is no longer allowed at the temple will claim that it is all false accusations, and that there was no criminal conviction, hence, as Vishnugada Prabhu is suggesting, no crime.
I doubt there is anyone who believes that this is solid reasoning.
We are certainly placing trust in the CPO in all directions, and I agree that a false accusation is as bad as abuse itself. But that leaves us with only one solution, to improve the CPO.
I believe that if Vishnugada Prabhu wasn't so focused on trying to release Vakresvara Pandit from the CPO decision, he might step back and evaluate it more calmly. However, neither of us are judges on the CPO itself. So whether we believe Vakresvara is guilty or not, and with whatever degree of passion we can muster, the fact is that it is an important case. Either for the sexual victim and abuser, or alternatively for the accused victim and false accuser. Either way, only one body can deal with it -- the CPO.
In other circumstances the statute of limitations WOULD apply; the fact that it doesn't in this case is irrelevant. The point remains that the CPO would also be vital in such a situation where the statute of limitations does apply. Just as it is in a situation in which the criminal justice system is not prepared to deal with a case that is very much a fact.
As it stands, while I have empathy for Vishnugada's frustration at what he sees as a false accusation, I cannot agree with his determination that the CPO should be stripped of its role. And I don't think the public court of opinion would do better than the CPO in evaluating the right or wrong of the case, and I know for certain that the victim/accuser would do worse out of it.
Hopefully we can improve the CPO so that the procedures are more robust and cannot be attacked when someone disagrees with the result.
Radhe Shyam,
and I hope that justice will prevail.
Kapila
