O código de ética do Yoga - Mahavir Thury

Justiça

 

P.R. Sarkar, Índia - 1959 O sentido da palavra vicára ou justiça está no fato de ser a justiça um tipo particular de processo mental para averiguar a verdade. Embora as ações humanas dependam de princípios relativos, o que quer que pareça ser a verdade neste mundo relativo, dentro da sociedade, é justiça. O maior benefício da aplicação adequada da justiça é que na luta entre forças progressivas e regressivas, entre o bem e o mal, que é uma característica permanente da sociedade, o intelecto humano tem um número crescente de oportunidades de escolher o caminho da retidão. Administrando a Justiça Muitas pessoas dizem: “Quando os seres humanos possuem tão pouca inteligência, como podem ser qualificados para julgar os outros? Ninguém tem o direito de julgar os outros.” Não rejeito completamente esse argumento, embora eu levante a seguinte questão: “Não seria injusto que as pessoas deixassem de utilizar apropriadamente seus intelectos, com os quais foram dotadas neste mundo relativo?” Os julgamentos podem não estar sempre corretos, a determinação dos critérios judiciais pode ser falha, ou as faculdades mentais ou a maneira de pensar do juiz podem criar dúvidas aos olhos das pessoas sobre se ele ou ela pode ser considerado uma pessoa ideal. Devemos, portanto, abandonar o sistema judicial completamente? Não, certamente não. Nenhum padrão específico para medir o progresso intelectual já foi ou será aceito como absoluto. No entanto, em todas as esferas da vida deve haver um esforço contínuo para progredir da imperfeição para a perfeição. Este esforço tornará, mesmo que indiretamente, o progresso social e o bem-estar geral mais acessíveis à raça humana. Um processo judicial termina quando um veredito é alcançado sobre qualquer coisa, então um processo judicial não é algo completo em si mesmo. Somente quando o veredito é implementado o processo completo é concluído. Em outras palavras, a utilidade da justiça na vida social é sentida apenas quando uma medida penal, ou melhor ainda, uma medida corretiva, para o indivíduo ou grupo em questão é implementada conforme o veredito. Mas se em qualquer estágio o critério judicial não for idêntico à verdade além de qualquer sombra de dúvida, ninguém pode negar que cuidados especiais terão que ser tomados no momento de proferir a sentença ao acusado de acordo com o veredito dado. Eu pessoalmente sou da opinião de que, uma vez que as falhas sempre permanecerão inevitavelmente, não importa quão bom seja o sistema judicial, não é a intenção da natureza que um ser humano penalize outro. Além disso, uma análise detalhada revela que sempre que uma ação punitiva é tomada para penalizar alguém, um sentimento de vingança surge nas mentes daqueles que administram a punição, o que por sua vez cria uma mentalidade malévola. Portanto, acho que o termo "sistema penal" deve ser excluído da terminologia social. Se e quando alguém, seja um juiz ou uma pessoa comum, tomar qualquer tipo de ação contra outro, deve ser corretiva, não punitiva. Se um sistema de medidas corretivas for introduzido, os criminosos, estejam eles profundamente envolvidos no crime ou não, não terão motivos para reclamar contra ninguém. Embora possa haver falhas no julgamento, isso não os prejudicará de forma alguma. Uma pessoa que é definitivamente culpada se beneficiará de um sistema de medidas corretivas, e mesmo uma pessoa que não é culpada se beneficiará de tal sistema. Portanto, minha opinião é que nenhuma pessoa inocente deve ter a oportunidade de pensar ou dizer: "Embora eu seja inocente, estou sendo punido porque não pude pagar um bom advogado", devido a falhas no sistema judicial. Sem dúvida, a sociedade será afetada negativamente se um infrator fugir da lei e não for preso pela polícia devido à sua incompetência, mas danos muito maiores serão causados ​​se uma pessoa inocente for penalizada por causa de um sistema judicial defeituoso. Do ponto de vista social ou humano, todos têm o direito de corrigir o comportamento de todos os outros. Este é o direito de nascença de todo ser humano. Nenhum estudioso pode contestar o direito das pessoas de corrigir as deficiências daqueles com quem entram em contato. O reconhecimento deste direito é indispensável para a saúde da sociedade. Assim, fica claro que medidas corretivas são necessárias para complementar a justiça. Tal arranjo impede que um governo tenha qualquer escopo para impor um sistema penal violento e cruel e uma ditadura opressiva às massas. Aqui está a diferença básica entre o sistema administrativo e o sistema corretivo. A disciplina severa que é necessária no sistema administrativo para fortalecer a estrutura da sociedade ou do estado não é necessária no sistema judicial; em vez disso, o sistema judicial é baseado em ideias racionais, tolerantes, humanísticas e sentimentos benevolentes. Assim, vemos que em muitos casos há uma diferença fundamental entre os sistemas administrativo e judicial. Os juízes podem e frequentemente moderarão as atitudes implacáveis ​​da administração com raciocínio humano; os vereditos de juízes humanos serão, portanto, mais aceitáveis ​​para a população de um estado do que os pronunciamentos de uma administração insensível. Se isso não acontecer, ficará imediatamente claro que um indivíduo ou parte está abusando do poder investido neles pelo estado. O papel dos juízes As pessoas julgam os erros dos outros da melhor maneira possível. Não acho que haja algo errado nisso, desde que as pessoas mantenham o ideal de bem-estar diante delas. As pessoas podem julgar os outros, mas sempre houve e ainda há uma diferença de opinião entre moralistas sobre o estágio final do processo judicial: em outras palavras, sobre até que ponto as pessoas têm o direito de penalizar os outros. Se uma pessoa for julgada e nenhuma ação for tomada como resultado do julgamento, a pessoa em questão não terá que enfrentar a possibilidade de um erro judiciário. Mas se no caso de um erro judiciário a pessoa for penalizada com base no veredito, uma pessoa inocente será feita para sofrer. Em outras palavras, penalizar uma pessoa com base em um veredito envolve risco considerável. Os juízes raramente podem dizer com total convicção que uma pessoa é culpada e outra inocente. Seus vereditos são baseados nos depoimentos de testemunhas, nas evidências e nos argumentos de advogados. Eles têm muito pouco escopo para verificar se as testemunhas estão ou não dizendo a verdade ou se as evidências são genuínas ou não. Advogados experientes geralmente ganham casos porque até mesmo um juiz eminente fica confuso com seus argumentos. Além disso, se os advogados experientes também forem juízes aposentados, será muito fácil para eles conquistarem o juiz. Um juiz que trabalhou anteriormente com um advogado experiente geralmente achará difícil rejeitar suas evidências e argumentos. Em outras palavras, esses advogados exercem uma influência pessoal sobre o juiz. É claro que na maioria dos países desenvolvidos hoje em dia os juízes aposentados são impedidos de exercer a advocacia. Essa regulamentação é altamente louvável e resulta em uma chance maior de o público em geral receber justiça. No entanto, ainda não há garantia de que as pessoas receberão justiça imparcial, porque na prática muito poucos juízes são capazes de verificar se as testemunhas estão dizendo a verdade ou se as evidências são genuínas, ou de examinar de perto os argumentos prolixos de advogados experientes. Para determinar se as testemunhas estão dizendo a verdade e se as evidências são genuínas, os juízes terão que receber ajuda considerável de detetives. A carga de trabalho dos detetives aumentará como resultado e, portanto, pode ser necessário aumentar o número de detetives. Ao meramente aumentar o número de detetives, no entanto, não podemos esperar que esse problema seja resolvido, porque se as sementes da corrupção estiverem escondidas no próprio departamento de detetives, será virtualmente impossível eliminá-las. Em outras palavras, se os detetives aceitarem subornos por ganância, o acusado ou o autor sofrerão como resultado. Embora seja necessário que um país tenha um número adequado de detetives, é impossível para um governo recrutar um grande número de detetives altamente proficientes. Portanto, será necessário que as investigações realizadas pelos detetives sobre se as testemunhas estão dizendo a verdade e se as evidências são genuínas sejam verificadas novamente pelos juízes. Os juízes, no entanto, não precisam assumir a responsabilidade exclusiva por esse trabalho em todos os casos; parte dele pode ser realizada por um júri. Isso resultará em um aumento na importância do sistema de júri. O único critério para selecionar os membros do júri deve ser a honestidade. Qualificações educacionais e status social não devem ser levados em consideração. É preferível que a responsabilidade final por um julgamento recaia sobre o juiz, não sobre o júri. Portanto, os juízes devem ser cuidadosamente selecionados entre aqueles cuja força de caráter é irrefutável. Geralmente, o número de juízes é menor do que o número de policiais ou detetives, e seus salários são maiores, portanto, com esforços adequados, não será impossível para um país obter os juízes competentes de que precisa. Órgãos autônomos locais devem receber a responsabilidade de selecionar os membros do júri; empresários, corretores e líderes políticos ou trabalhadores partidários não devem ser elegíveis para serem membros do júri. Não podemos esperar que os juízes concordem com o júri em todos os casos, porque isso limitaria sua autoridade. Nem devemos esperar que os membros do júri sejam bons juízes, não importa quão honestos e íntegros eles sejam. Além disso, após conduzir investigações sobre o evento em questão, o juiz e o júri podem chegar a conclusões diferentes; não será errado concluir que a conclusão do juiz deve ter mais peso. No entanto, é possível que um juiz seja parcial, para satisfazer um rancor pessoal ou em conluio com o acusado; se for assim, o que deve ser feito? Se os membros de um júri suspeitarem da conduta do juiz ou ficarem insatisfeitos com seu comportamento durante o curso de um julgamento, todo o processo do caso deve ser levado ao conhecimento de uma autoridade judicial superior antes que o juiz profira seu julgamento final no tribunal. Se a autoridade judicial superior compartilhar a opinião dos membros do júri, não seria sensato manter o juiz. Embora eu não apoie totalmente a maneira como a justiça era administrada pelos káziis [juízes muçulmanos] na Idade Média, seria útil se os juízes de hoje imitassem sua dedicação. Os káziis assumiram grande risco e responsabilidade pessoal quando se disfarçaram e foram buscar a verdade na cena do crime, ou tentaram extrair uma confissão do acusado ou do autor usando um ardil inteligente. Tais esforços colocariam maior responsabilidade sobre os juízes e, portanto, pode ser necessário aumentar tanto seu número quanto seu salário. Além disso, também pode ser necessário aumentar sua autoridade para que eles pudessem proferir julgamentos com base em suas descobertas e experiência. No entanto, não importa quais esforços façamos para garantir julgamentos justos, não podemos esperar que eles estejam sempre corretos. O júri pode cometer um erro, ou tanto o juiz quanto o júri podem cometer um erro. Ambos podem concordar com a injustiça devido a emoções transitórias ou excitação. Portanto, sob nenhuma circunstância um julgamento pode ser tomado como a palavra final. Portanto, sou obrigado a dizer que, se houver qualquer dúvida sobre a precisão de um julgamento, nenhuma punição deve ser dada. Do ponto de vista moral também é óbvio que, se desejam preservar a pureza social, as pessoas só têm o direito de tomar medidas corretivas e não punitivas. A lei que controla cada pulsação da existência humana tem a única autoridade para penalizar as pessoas, e nenhuma outra. Ainda assim, se as pessoas pudessem ter demonstrado que seus julgamentos eram absolutamente livres de defeitos ou estabelecido que seu sistema de punição era legítimo, haveria algo para discutir. Mas os seres humanos são incapazes de fazer isso. Então, para a preservação da sociedade, se as pessoas quiserem tomar medidas contra os outros, essas medidas terão que ser corretivas, não punitivas. Mesmo que o sistema judicial seja defeituoso, se apenas medidas corretivas forem tomadas, não há possibilidade de alguém sofrer algum dano. Antes de olhar mais profundamente para as medidas corretivas, é necessário examinar de perto o padrão dos juízes. Aqueles que têm permissão para julgar os outros e têm o poder de punir devem ser monitorados de perto para ver se ocorreu alguma degeneração em sua inteligência, capacidade de deliberação ou caráter moral. De tempos em tempos, conforme e quando necessário, relatórios sobre o caráter e a conduta dos juízes podem ser exigidos por órgãos que representam o povo. Um juiz que é um bêbado, de caráter duvidoso ou envolvido em qualquer forma de atividade antissocial não tem o direito de julgar os outros. Estou enfatizando os padrões pessoais dos juízes porque a natureza da justiça é tal que maior prioridade deve ser dada a fatores temporais, espaciais e pessoais do que a processos legais. Em caso de conflito entre o código penal e o código moral, o código moral deve ter precedência. Ao presidir um julgamento, um juiz não deve ter preconceito contra o acusado, mas deve considerar se ele ou ela cometeu um crime ou não; e se sim, em que circunstâncias, e se o crime foi cometido voluntariamente ou por instigação de outros. Este é o principal ponto a ser considerado durante um julgamento. A pessoa a quem a sociedade concedeu o solene cargo de juiz deve, portanto, ter um padrão mais elevado do que uma pessoa comum. Não estou pronto para aceitar que um estudante de direito que se formou com distinção na faculdade de direito de uma universidade necessariamente será um juiz competente. Embora seja inegável que bons advogados e advogados tenham conhecimento da lei e habilidade em apresentar argumentos, isso não é garantia de que eles serão juízes equitativos. Instâncias de justiça equitativa podem ser vistas em inúmeros eventos grandes e pequenos que ocorrem na vida individual e social. Ao se sentar para julgar um infrator, a primeira coisa que o juiz deve considerar é se o acusado cometeu um crime ou não. Para fins de análise dos tipos de crime cometidos por um criminoso, e se suas ofensas foram cometidas voluntariamente ou por instigação de outros, os criminosos podem ser classificados nas cinco categorias a seguir: (1) Criminosos por Natureza (2) Criminosos por Hábito (3) Criminosos Devido ao Ambiente (4) Criminosos Devido à Pobreza (5) Criminosos por Fraqueza Momentânea ********✋******** Justice 1959 The underlying spirit of the word vicára [“justice” in English] is “a particular type of mental process to ascertain the truth”. Although human actions depend on relative principles, whatever appears to be the truth in this relative world, within society, is justice. The greatest benefit of the proper application of justice is that in the struggle between progressive and regressive forces, between good and evil, which is a permanent feature of society, the human intellect has an increasing number of opportunities to choose the path of righteousness. Administering Justice Many people say, “When human beings possess so little intelligence, how can they be qualified to sit in judgement over others? No one has the right to judge others.” I do not completely reject this argument, though I will raise the following question: “Is it not injustice if people do not use the intellect they have been endowed with in this relative world?” Judgements may not always be correct, the determination of judicial criteria may be flawed, or the mental faculties or the way of thinking of the judge may create doubts in the eyes of people about whether he or she can be considered an ideal person. Should we therefore abandon the judicial system altogether? No, certainly not. No particular standard for measuring intellectual progress has ever been or will ever be accepted as absolute. Nevertheless, in every sphere of life there must be an ongoing effort to progress from imperfection to perfection. This effort will, if only indirectly, make social progress and all-round welfare more accessible to the human race. A judicial process ends once a verdict is reached about anything, so a judicial process is not something complete in itself. Only once the verdict is implemented is the full process complete. In other words, the utility of justice in social life is felt only when a penal measure, or better still, a corrective measure, for the concerned individual or group is implemented as per the verdict. But if at any stage the judicial yardstick is not identical with truth beyond a shadow of doubt, no one can deny that special care will have to be taken at the time of passing sentence on the accused in accordance with the verdict given. I am personally of the opinion that since flaws will always unavoidably remain, no matter how good the judicial system, it is not the intent of nature for one human being to penalize another. Moreover, a detailed analysis reveals that whenever a punitive action is taken to penalize somebody, a feeling of vindictiveness arises in the minds of those administering the punishment, which in turn creates a malevolent mentality. I therefore think that the term “penal system” should be deleted from social terminology. If and when somebody, whether a judge or an ordinary person, takes any type of action against another, it should be corrective, not punitive. If a system of corrective measures is introduced, criminals, whether they were deeply involved in the crime or not, will have no reason to complain against anyone. Although there may be flaws in the judgement, it will not harm them in any way. A person who is definitely guilty will benefit from a system of corrective measures, and even a person who is not guilty will benefit from such a system. Thus my opinion is that no innocent person should have the opportunity to think or say, “Although I am innocent, I am being punished because I couldn’t afford a good lawyer” due to flaws in the judicial system. No doubt society will be adversely affected if an offender evades the law and is not arrested by the police due to their incompetence, but far greater damage will be done if an innocent person is penalized because of a defective judicial system. From the social or human viewpoint, everybody has the right to correct the behaviour of everyone else. This is the birthright of every human being. No scholar can dispute the right of people to correct the shortcomings of those with whom they come in contact. The recognition of this right is indispensable for the health of society. Thus it is clear that corrective measures are necessary to complement justice. Such an arrangement prevents a government from getting any scope to impose a violent, cruel penal system and an oppressive dictatorship on the masses. Here lies the basic difference between the administrative system and the corrective system. The severe discipline that is needed in the administrative system to strengthen the framework of society or that of the state is not necessary in the judicial system; rather the judicial system is based on rational, tolerant, humanistic ideas and benevolent sentiments. Thus we see that in many cases there is a fundamental difference between the administrative and the judicial systems. Judges can and will frequently temper the merciless attitudes of the administration with humane reasoning; the verdicts of humane judges will therefore be more acceptable to the populace of a state than the pronouncements of an insensitive administration. If this does not happen it will immediately become clear that either an individual or party is abusing the power vested in them by the state. The Role of Judges People judge the mistakes of others to the best of their own intellectual capacities. I do not feel that there is anything wrong in this as long as people keep the ideal of welfare in front of them. People may judge others, but there has always been and still is a difference of opinion among moralists concerning the final stage of the judicial process: in other words, concerning the extent to which people have the right to penalize others. If a person is tried and no action is taken as a result of the trial, the person in question will not have to face the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. But if in the event of a miscarriage of justice the person is penalized on the basis of the verdict, an innocent person will be made to suffer. In other words, penalizing a person on the basis of a verdict involves considerable risk. Judges can rarely say with total conviction that one person is guilty and another innocent. Their verdicts are based on the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence and the arguments of lawyers. They have very little scope to verify whether or not the witnesses are telling the truth or whether or not the evidence is genuine. Experienced lawyers often win cases because even an eminent judge becomes confused by their arguments. Moreover, if the experienced lawyers also happen to be retired judges, it will be very easy for them to win over the judge. A judge who previously worked under an experienced lawyer will usually find it difficult to reject his or her evidence and arguments. In other words, such lawyers exert a personal influence over the judge. Of course in most developed countries nowadays retired judges are prevented from practising law. This regulation is highly commendable, and results in the general public getting a better chance of receiving justice. However, there is still no guarantee that people will receive impartial justice, because in practice very few judges are able to verify whether the witnesses are telling the truth or whether the evidence is genuine, or to closely scrutinize the verbose arguments of experienced lawyers. In order to determine whether the witnesses are telling the truth and whether the evidence is genuine, judges will have to take considerable help from detectives. The workload of detectives will increase as a result, and thus it may be necessary to increase the number of detectives. By merely increasing the number of detectives, however, we cannot expect that this problem will be solved, because if the seeds of corruption are hidden in the detective department itself, it will be virtually impossible to eliminate them. In other words, if detectives take bribes out of greed, the accused or the plaintiff will suffer as a result. While it is necessary for a country to have an adequate number of detectives, it is impossible for a government to recruit a large number of highly proficient detectives. It will therefore be necessary for the investigations carried out by the detectives into whether the witnesses are telling the truth and whether the evidence is genuine to be verified again by the judges. Judges, however, do not need to take sole responsibility for this work in all cases; part of it may be performed by a jury. This will result in an increase in the importance of the jury system. The only criterion for selecting members of the jury should be honesty. Educational qualifications and social status should not be taken into consideration. It is preferable that the final responsibility for a judgement rest with the judge, not the jury. So judges should be carefully selected from among those whose strength of character is irrefutable. Generally the number of judges is smaller than the number of police or detectives, and their salaries are higher, so with proper efforts it will not be impossible for a country to procure the competent judges that it needs. Local autonomous bodies should be given the responsibility for selecting the members of the jury; business people, brokers and political leaders or party workers should not be eligible to be jury members. We cannot expect judges to agree with the jury in all cases because that would limit their authority. Nor should we expect that the members of the jury will make good judges, no matter how honest and upright they may be. Furthermore, after conducting investigations into the event in question, the judge and jury may arrive at different conclusions; it will not be wrong to conclude that the judge’s conclusion should carry more weight. However, it is possible for a judge to be partial, out to satisfy a personal grudge or in collusion with the accused; if so, what should be done? If the members of a jury become suspicious of the judge’s conduct or dissatisfied with his or her behaviour during the course of a trial, the entire proceedings of the case should be brought to the notice of a higher judicial authority before the judge delivers his or her final judgement in court. If the higher judicial authority shares the opinion of the members of the jury, it would be unwise to retain the judge. Although I do not fully support the way in which justice was administered by the káziis [Muslim judges] in the Middle Ages, it would be useful if judges today emulated their dedication. The káziis took great risk and personal responsibility when they disguised themselves and went to seek the truth at the scene of the crime, or tried to extract a confession from the accused or the plaintiff by using a clever ruse. Such efforts would place greater responsibility on the judges, and thus it might be necessary to increase both their number and their salary. Besides this, it might also be necessary to increase their authority so that they could deliver judgements on the basis of their findings and experience. However, no matter what efforts we make to ensure fair judgements, we cannot expect them to always be correct. The jury may make a mistake, or both the judge and the jury may make a mistake. Both may acquiesce in injustice due to transitory emotions or excitement. Hence, under no circumstances can a judgement be taken as the final word. So I am constrained to say that if there is any doubt at all about the accuracy of a judgement, no punishment should be given. From the moral viewpoint also it is obvious that, if they wish to preserve social purity, people only have the right to take corrective measures and not punitive measures. The law that controls every pulsation of human existence has the sole authority to penalize people, and no other. Still, if people could have demonstrated that their judgements were absolutely free from defects or established that their system of punishment was legitimate, there would have been something to discuss. But human beings are incapable of doing this. So for the preservation of society, if people want to take measures against others, those measures will have to be corrective, not punitive. Even if the judicial system is defective, if only corrective measures are taken then there is no possibility of anyone coming to any harm. Before looking more deeply at corrective measures, it is necessary to closely examine the standard of judges. Those who are permitted to sit in judgement over others and have the power to punish must be closely monitored to see whether any degeneration has occurred in their intelligence, capacity for deliberation, or moral character. From time to time, as and when necessary, reports about the character and conduct of judges may be required by bodies representing the people. A judge who is a drunkard, of dubious character or engaged in any form of antisocial activity has no right to pass judgement on others. I am emphasizing the personal standards of judges because the nature of justice is such that higher priority has to be given to temporal, spatial and personal factors than to legal processes. In the event of conflict between the criminal code and the moral code, the moral code must take precedence. While presiding over a trial a judge should not be prejudiced against the accused, but should consider whether he or she has committed a crime or not; and if so, under what circumstances, and whether the crime was committed voluntarily or at the instigation of others. This is the main point for consideration during a trial. The person on whom society has bestowed the solemn office of judge has therefore to be of a higher standard than an ordinary person. I am not ready to accept that a law student who has graduated with distinction from the law faculty of a university will necessarily make a competent judge. While it is undeniable that good lawyers and barristers have knowledge of the law and skill in presenting arguments, this is no guarantee that they will make equitable judges. Instances of equitable justice can be seen in countless large and small events which occur in individual and social life. When sitting to pass judgement on an offender the first thing for the judge to consider is whether the accused has committed a crime or not. For the purpose of analysing the types of crime committed by a criminal, and whether his or her offences were committed voluntarily or at the instigation of others, criminals may be classified into the following five categories. (1) Criminals by Nature Some few men and women are born with a deranged mind. The cause of their mental derangement is concealed within the defects of their body and glands. Such people can be divided into two main groups. The first group is composed of people who are normally very quiet, but in whom truthfulness and doing good to others are against their nature. They derive malevolent pleasure from lying and harming others. They are generally poor at managing their worldly affairs and incapable of comprehending the difference between good and bad. They act according to their limited mental capacity. Although they are mentally underdeveloped, they are deprived of the same kindness and compassion that other simpletons, due to their innate purity, receive. They take a long time to learn how to walk and talk and to understand simple matters, and they continue to dribble for a large part of their lives. Despite the sincere efforts of their parents and teachers, they fail to acquire any education. Even before they reach adulthood they manifest their base propensities. They generally become petty thieves, not armed robbers. Although they have a bad character, they do not have the courage to perform antisocial activities openly. They commit offences on their own initiative and at the instigation of others. The second group of born criminals is more dangerous. Throughout their lives they revel in displays of provoked or unprovoked cruelty. They have a natural inclination to kill or maim others. They become members of criminal gangs and commit murder and other horrendous acts. Generally they do not become pickpockets, petty thieves or burglars. They consider such things to be the activities of petty criminals and as such beneath their dignity. In criminal circles they are usually greatly feared. From their mode of thinking or lifestyle, it appears as though they were born only to commit crimes. They consider compassion and conscience to be mere frailties; the importance of such attributes is beyond their understanding. Although they may be slow when it comes to worldly affairs, they are not fools. At the time of committing their instinct-inspired crimes, they give ample proof of their intelligence. They demonstrate their intelligence through their knowledge of osteology and psychology, and by their behaviour when dealing with the police and the public. Even if they are born into a salutary environment, this type of inborn criminal ultimately takes to a life of crime. Women with this kind of nature are quite incapable of leading chaste lives; even if they have good husbands, they often decide to become prostitutes. The natures and lifestyles of born criminals are as diverse as their crimes. Some pose as honest people and secretly steal and commit robberies. Some gain a lot of money through forgery or armed robbery and donate it to the poor. Some like to prey on helpless victims. Among those who commit crimes because they derive pleasure from it, some do not have the opportunity to earn a living, or if they do, do not utilize that chance to lead an honest life. The natures of born criminals, the lifestyles they lead, and their preferences for particular types of crimes are usually consistent with each other. Psychologists have learned a great deal about criminals and are trying to research them more. If they receive cooperation from the government, and especially from the police department, they will make rapid progress in the study of criminal psychology. An analysis of criminal psychology is not the subject under discussion, but still it is a fact that born criminals are society’s greatest burden and greatest responsibility. Although such criminals are born with human bodies, mentally they are sub-human. And that is not all: even the physical structure of such people is different from that of ordinary people. The sweet family environment that is within easy reach of human beings due to their developed intellect and which becomes even sweeter in time due to their natural qualities, is not accessible to born criminals. Even if they are born into a good environment, they cannot fully accept it. Just to satisfy their perverse mentality, they may poison their benevolent fathers out of any misunderstanding, or may brutally stab their loving mothers in the heart. From a viewpoint of normal human behaviour, it would be extremely difficult to treat born criminals as human beings. Nature normally bestows different strengths and weaknesses on different persons, but this principle takes a deviant twist in the case of these people. Born criminals can understand or grasp many natural phenomena more easily than highly-intelligent or wise people. Many underdeveloped creatures have a greater capacity than human beings to foresee the future, and it can be seen that born criminals also have this ability. Through the observations and investigations psychologists have made while studying criminal psychology, they have gained a great deal of useful information about born criminals. But until now no physiological or psychological treatment has been developed to reform their nature. Psychologists or physiologists know the cause of their deformities or abnormalities, and they even know [theoretically] how their abnormalities can be cured, but in practice it is extremely difficult to cure them. No country in the world has ever wished to demonstrate any enthusiasm for curing the diseases of these unfortunate people. They live like animals, senselessly performing wicked acts. And like animals, they allow their pointless lives to end with a rope around their necks. If “a life for a life” is considered an unassailable principle of justice, then there is nothing more to say. But remember that born criminals commit their crimes due to their physical or psychic abnormalities; are not the so-called civilized people who make no effort to cure such born criminals, guilty of the same crime? Does not capital punishment amount to cutting off the head to get rid of a headache? In my opinion to take the life of a born criminal of this type is as much a crime as it would be to pass a death sentence on a patient just because we could not cure the person’s illness. It is the duty of a civilized society to arrange for born criminals to be cured of their ailments. Killing them to lighten the burden caused by their lives is certainly not indicative of a developed civilization. So in my opinion the trials of born criminals should not concentrate solely on the magnitude of their crimes. Such criminals will have to be regarded with benevolent, humanistic sentiments, and means of curing them must be suggested. Doctors quarantine those with an infectious disease to prevent the disease spreading to healthy people. Similarly it is necessary to isolate born criminals, indeed all types of criminals, from other people. The treatment of criminals should be undertaken in a prison, or better said, in a corrective centre. Prisons are not for punishment, rather prisons are hospitals for treatment of disease. Psychologists cannot treat the mental diseases which inflict born criminals all alone; the cooperation of physicians and sociologists is essential. Psychologists will diagnose the mental disease and explain its origins, and they will also play a role in helping cure it as far as possible. Doctors will be responsible for curing the disease through medicine or surgery, insofar as it is caused by physiological abnormalities. Then sociologists will have to arrange for the social rehabilitation of the criminal after he or she has recovered. If psychologists only describe the nature of the disease, or if doctors only diagnose the physiological disorders and nothing more, it will not be possible to accomplish anything productive. Of course at the present time the patient may not make a complete recovery despite the concerted efforts of psychologists and sociologists, because psychology is still in an underdeveloped state. Moreover, doctors have not yet acquired the skills needed to remove the physiological abnormalities responsible for mental disease. And furthermore, the science of sociology has only just emerged; it is developing extremely slowly. However, we must take the above measures for born criminals. As long as society fails to take such humanistic measures in dealing with born criminals, it is farcical to compel them to stand trial. One must always remember that born criminals are patients, and that their disease is stubborn. It can of course be cured quite quickly through spiritual practices, and in a slightly longer period through yogic methods, but for this a congenial environment is essential. Prison environments should therefore be made more pure, more humane. (2) Criminals out of Habit Where (1) moral integrity is low, where (2) no effort is made to develop mental force, or where (3) social control is slack, people will be influenced by their ripus,(1) and will not hesitate to choose a path which enables them to express their propensities unchecked. Ordinary people manage to keep their base propensities under control through internal moral reasoning, and thus avoid indulging in antisocial activities. But those who lack mental strength often knowingly commit crimes in an almost mechanical way, even though they possess a sense of morality. Such people who possess a sense of morality but lack mental strength normally keep their momentary mental weaknesses under control out of fear of what society might do, and as a result the health of society and the purity of individual life is upheld. But if any one of these three obstacles which keep people from moving along the path of evil becomes weak, people will tend to engage in antisocial activities; in the absence of fear of these obstacles, they will gradually become increasingly addicted to such activities. In this way people get accustomed to performing antisocial activities and finally turn into hardened criminals. The diseases of habitual criminals are not congenital, so in treating these people there is little place for a physiologist or doctor. However, habitual criminals can easily be treated if they are provided with a proper moral education, a method of acquiring moral strength and a strictly regulated social environment. So during the trials of habitual criminals, the judge should focus more on the provisions of the penal code than on humanitarian sensibility; this approach will benefit society. No matter how villainous habitual criminals become, and no matter how notorious, they will never be as dangerous as born criminals. Because they possess some sense of discrimination, they should not be automatically pardoned on the grounds of mental illness. They also possess the ability to feign innocence. They behave like saints by day and steal by night; they live like landlords one moment and like armed robbers the next; they are chaste in public and promiscuous in private. Generally the scale of their criminal activities is greater than that of other criminals. Psychological treatment and strict prison discipline help to a great extent in reforming the nature of habitual criminals. (Of course such criminals must live in a pure social environment as well.) This type of criminal nature is often formed as an indirect result of people being forced to submit to strict control without being given any moral education or guidance as to how to develop strength of mind. For example, some parents do not impart moral education to their children, and do not help them to acquire strength of mind or teach them how to lead a virtuous life; instead, they beat their children with or without justification. It is the children of such parents who later take part in antisocial activities. If parents fail to educate their daughters out of fear that they will go astray, fail to provide them with a moral education, fail to help them acquire strength of mind by holding up high ideals before them, and try to forcibly keep their unmarried or widowed daughters confined behind the purdah, naturally the secret desire will awaken in them to leave home and experience the world. As a result they will put on a show of purity in public while indulging in sinful conduct in private. Often they will even break away from the constraints imposed on them and openly engage in antisocial activities. Although it is extremely difficult to convince habitual criminals to follow the path of spirituality, it may be possible through psychological means. In most cases they are intelligent, but out of petty selfishness they rebel against society, country and state. Many habitual criminals become politicians in order to further their own selfish ends and cheat the public day after day. Most of the great wars fought in the world have been started by such criminals. The leaders of the criminal community come from this group. Sometimes the unfortunate public grabs hold of these leaders, just as fishermen catch fish in a net and drag them onto the shore, and sometimes these leaders break the net and slip away. Not only is intelligence required to bring these criminals to justice, a great deal of caution and courage is required as well. Black marketeers and adulterators who operate on a large scale should also be included in this group of criminals. Habitual criminals sometimes also try to influence judges. They intimidate them in the hope of ensuring the successful continuation of their criminal activities. In order to punish habitual criminals, it is necessary to give judges far greater power than they now possess. (3) Criminals Due to Environment Many people in society do not become criminals because of physiological or hereditary factors. Nor do they become involved in criminal activities due to the influence of base propensities, or due to lack of education or social control. Yet today civilized society looks down on them because they are criminals when they could have been revered as ideal human beings with impeccable characters if they had been given a proper environment. They are glaring examples that honest people can become dishonest as a result of environmental pressures. The sensitive, honest son of a villainous father is compelled to participate in antisocial activities out of fear of paternal abuse. This creates a habit which eventually becomes part of his nature. The daughter of a prostitute, despite her best efforts to live a virtuous life, is forced to lead the life of a social outcast due to unbearable maternal abuse or circumstantial pressure. At first we usually censure the parents or guardians for the helpless condition of such women, but the parents are not always completely to blame. Sometimes personal difficulties, such as financial hardship or poverty, compel them to take such steps, even when they know that what they are doing is wrong. Due to circumstantial pressure they encourage their children to do wrong and force them to commit crimes. Those who denigrate refugees, seeing an antisocial mentality in some of them, will notice on closer examination that it is only because of lack of money that refugees encourage their children to act in an antisocial manner. But antisocial behaviour is not always caused by lack of money. Where the parents or guardians are evil by nature, they try to infect the other members of their family with their disease. A few days ago I read in the newspaper that an upper-middle-class lady used to encourage her son to steal clothes, etc., from her neighbours by offering him money for cinema tickets if he did – in other words, by applying indirect pressure. When the incident became public, it was discovered that her family was not in financial difficulty. By putting pressure on her son, the lady was infecting him with her own mental disease. There are many parents who, due to miserliness or whatever reason, deprive their children of delicious food and drink. (If there is some reason for this deprivation, they do not explain it to their children.) They serve such food and drink to others in the presence of their children without explaining to them why they are being deprived. As a result, the children, under the pressure of circumstance, steal to try to satisfy their natural desires. There are many people who themselves, that is, together with the members of their family, consume delicious food and drink but provide poor-quality food to their servants. The servants subsequently develop the habit of stealing out of greed. There are many parents who directly encourage their children to fight and abuse others. I have also observed quiet-natured children who often disagreed with the opinions of their parents, being forced to follow their parents’ orders out of fear of physical abuse. In a remote village I once observed a young man, who was a member of a social group which followed the Dáyabhága system,(2) abuse his innocent wife and torture her at the instigation of his cruel father, out of fear of losing his right of inheritance. These are just a few examples of crimes due to environment. During the trials of criminals due to environment who have not yet turned into habitual criminals, the judge should not attach too much importance to the provisions of the penal code. If, after thorough investigation, it is discovered that particular people or circumstantial pressure have caused these criminals (whatever their age) to take part in antisocial activities, it will be the duty of the judge to remove them from that environment with the help of sociologists and psychologists. Such cases rarely require further corrective measures. But if those who are criminals due to circumstantial pressure become habitual criminals as a result of a long-standing habit, a change of environment alone will not suffice. Corrective measures in accordance with the provisions of the penal code will also be necessary. Those who are born with fairly healthy bodies and minds, who do not lack knowledge of morality or live an undisciplined social life, or who have not become dishonest as a result of circumstantial pressure, often unwittingly take to the path of dishonesty because they keep bad company. Perhaps as many as ninety-nine per cent of people talk about themselves in the following way: “I do not need to bother about the company I keep, as long as I am good myself. I can remain good in all types of company. I am old enough to understand the difference between good and bad.” In other words, such people do not like to think, or rather feel piqued at the thought, that somebody should try to dissuade them from keeping bad company. Especially if a less-educated person advises a more highly-educated person to avoid bad company, that person will do it all the more. In society people who regard themselves as superior in status, wealth or education generally believe that it is entirely unwarranted for others to give them advice. That is why an educated but wayward son often disregards the good advice of his parents. The natural characteristics of the human mind, however, tell a different story than what that ninety-nine percent think. A person of any age between seven and seventy is invariably influenced by the company he or she keeps. In other words, where goodness is predominant, bad people will slowly but surely become good, and where the opposite is the case, good people will become bad. Even a saintly person will go astray after a few days of close association with bad people. Suppose a teetotaller mixes regularly with a group of alcoholics. The frequent anti-teetotaller gibes and the positive portrayals of the wondrous virtues of wine by the alcoholics will one day tempt the teetotaller to taste a little wine. His or her drinking friends will say, “We don’t want you to become drunk. But what’s the harm if you just taste a little! This surely won’t make you a bad person! What a moralist you are! Oh friend, to be such a moralist in the world today is ridiculous!” So one day the teetotaller tastes wine and this becomes the cause of his or her downfall. But on the day the unsuspecting teetotaller took wine, he or she did not realize that from that very day wine would become the cause of his or her degeneration. Similarly, by keeping bad company people become debauched, slanderers and thieves. Men or women who have to do little or no household work, who fail to cultivate high ideals in life, who are unable to evolve a spiritual outlook, or who do not have to work hard for a living, generally develop an extremely critical nature. By constantly associating with such people, those who possess high ideals or a diligent nature will gradually begin to spend their leisure time in slanderous gossip. If the parents or older members of a family are quarrelsome, the children will also become quarrelsome due to constant association. Similarly, if the women of a family have a highly critical nature, the children will invariably become critical because they will learn how to criticize from their elders. Children will also tend to become depraved if they associate too closely with older children in schools or colleges. When they stay among children their own age, however, they generally play in an innocent, joyous way. Childhood companions should be selected with great care, but young children are incapable of doing this. The base propensities which lie dormant in everyone are easily stimulated by constant association with bad people. Through the united efforts of parents, people living in the locality and educators, it may be possible to save children from bad company. But it is very difficult to save them from the evil influences which reside in their own homes or preponderate in their neighbourhood. The only way to overcome such influences is to popularize the ideals of dharma, spread moral education and train an honest police force. In the modern world there is a wide variety of films which excite the passions and have a degrading influence on boys and girls, adolescents and young men and women. Such films create in cinema-goers the desire to emulate in their individual lives the criminal activities, the vulgar expressions of love, or the adventurous behaviour that they see enacted on the screen. This is another example of how keeping bad company causes depravity. Many cinema-goers imagine that the characters that they see on the screen are their actual acquaintances, but when they try to emulate these characters, they discover that the real world is much tougher than the world portrayed by the cinema. If their family ties are weak, if they are their own guardians or if they have no high ideals to inspire them, it will be extremely difficult, although not impossible, to save them from bad influences. As long as those who become criminals due to keeping bad company are not transformed into habitual criminals, they will return to their normal good behaviour as soon as they give up the bad company. Therefore, during the trials of such criminals, corrective measures should be taken only after giving due consideration to the company they keep and the influence of this company on their behaviour. But in the case of those who have become habitual criminals, simply removing them from bad company will not suffice, because they themselves are their own bad company. For them, stricter measures will be needed. Nearly all deceitful acts, such as swindling, fraud, gambling, looting, seducing women, and travelling without a ticket, are commonly a result of the influence of bad company. In prisons also those criminals of this type who have already turned into habitual criminals should be housed with great care, otherwise their disease will spread to others. (4) Criminals Due to Poverty Most crimes throughout the world are committed due to poverty, except in countries where the minimum necessities of life have been met. Of course the tendency to engage in antisocial activities because of poverty does not manifest equally in all places or among all people. The degree of such crimes varies according to the moral strength of an individual. But no matter how strongly developed the moral consciousness of a person, if poverty threatens his or her very existence, usually the person will try to attack the prevailing social structure. This being the case, I cannot in the name of human dharma reject the reasons such people give, if they give any reasons at all, in defence of their actions. They demand simply the right to live, and on this human right stands the well-being of society, the justification for its existence. Throughout history millions of people have died due to artificial famines created by other human beings. While walking along a road, weary, plodding legs have given way and a person has collapsed in a pitiful heap on the ground, yet he or she has refrained from stealing. Although a high standard of morality is one reason why the person did not make a last desperate bid for self-preservation, it is not the only reason. Starving people, particularly if they lose their vitality by slow degrees, do not have the moral courage to fight. Knowing the end is sure, they seek refuge in the arms of death. Basing their way of life on incorrect philosophical and religious teachings, they accept their miserable situation as destiny. Perhaps, at that time, if they were led by a spirited leader and inspired by his or her fiery lectures, or if they received guidance about the course of action to take, they would collectively attack the prevailing social structure. In such circumstances, their actions might perhaps be described as immoral, but they certainly would not contravene the dharma of human existence. Sometimes honest people, who hate corruption from the depths of their being but fail to keep their mental balance due to the pressure of poverty, resort to crime just to maintain their existence. What will happen in such circumstances if the judge looks only at the crime, or is even slightly indifferent to the questions of cause and effect related to the crime? Such offenders – who may be more honest than most well-fed, well-dressed, so-called honest people – will be thrown into jail and branded as criminals merely because of deficiencies in the system of production and distribution of basic requirements. Due to the bad company there, and overcome with shame, hatred and humiliation due to their punishment, they will gradually turn into habitual criminals after being released from jail. In areas hit by famine many crimes are committed due to poverty, but as soon as the economy improves the number of crimes decreases. This proves that most of the people in whatever country are not by nature criminals, nor for that matter is the human race in general. People want to be properly clothed and fed and to pass their days happily. They do not want to have the path of their natural development stop at an impenetrable iron door constructed by narrow-minded social-law-givers. Those who ignore their conscience and repeatedly commit crimes due to poverty, eventually turn into habitual criminals. If somebody steals or robs out of hunger, or is goaded by their propensities into some mean act, it will be the duty of society to find out what the person’s needs are and then remove them in some lawful way. But if society fails to do its duty (I have already said that human beings have not yet been able to create a society in the true sense of the term) and punishes such criminals instead, focusing only on the magnitude of their crimes, all feelings of remorse will vanish from their minds and in their place a sense of desperation will arise. They will feel that since they have already been stigmatized and have nothing further to lose, there is no point in suffering by earning a living in an honest way. They will think, “As I am sinking, let me sink to the depths of hell.” Those who have committed crimes due to poverty (whether due to lack of food or clothing, or physical or mental factors), will blame society for their offences. They will claim that their poverty is the result of a defective social structure, and in most cases this allegation will be true. If the breadwinner of a family dies a premature death, a dark shadow of poverty will often fall over the family, and it may disintegrate. Its sweetness and purity will be destroyed due to poverty. The young boys and girls will become beggars, increasing the number of parasites in society, or they will become the playthings of antisocial forces, eventually turning into thieves, armed robbers, thugs, pickpockets or agents of some professional beggars’ association. They will become slaves in order to survive. Young widows from communities which follow a double standard of morality will also be compelled or tempted by various forces to lead antisocial lives. Hence the solution to all these different antisocial activities is hidden in the creation of a sound economic and social structure. The man who is despised as a thief or treated with contempt by society might have been a genius if he had been brought up in a healthy social environment. The woman who is shunned as a prostitute might have been respected as the leader of a women’s organization or honoured as the mother of a famous person, had she received a little sympathy from society in the early part of her life. That is why I contend that those unfortunate men and women carry a burden of sin created through the collective efforts of society as a whole. They are not responsible for their sins, or if they are, their sins are considerably less, or at least no greater, than the sins of selfish, mean-minded people who call themselves honest. It is doubtful whether the Supreme Creator, let alone humanity, has the right to punish those who commit crimes due to poverty. Still, from the moral standpoint, I cannot support criminal acts. I would suggest that before committing such crimes they should become revolutionaries. It is the duty of those with a good knowledge of morality to guide them in their revolutionary activities. Let them separate the gold from the dross in the fire of revolution. On the subject of corrective measures for those who become criminals due to poverty, honest people have no alternative but to exhort them to launch a revolution. In this situation the position of a judge is like that of a figurehead; he or she has nothing to say or do. Psychologists and sociologists also have very limited scope for action; the pathways that lie open to them are very circumscribed. The solution completely depends on the firm economic foundation of the different individual countries as well as of the entire world. If anyone is at fault it is every one of the world leaders. Their responsibilities do not end when they gain power by creating false hopes and deceiving the common people with remote and unattainable dreams. People can score points in intellectual battles by hiding their inefficiency behind grandiloquent speeches, but if they do, the demands of the proletariat, who struggle for existence like animals, will not be heard. They will never be able to forget their hunger and ignore their psychic longings and simultaneously dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to the enormous task of developing their country and building a universal human society in a better way. Those whose stomachs are full can always forget about the hunger of others. The world has become accustomed to, but has experienced quite enough of, the procrastination and heartless histrionics of such blood-sucking brutes. By inventing crises, they force the needy to commit crimes; by hoarding grains, they cause artificial famines and indirectly incite starving people to steal; and by making people’s circumstances difficult and subsequently enticing them with money, they encourage men to abandon their families and compel women to earn their living in an immoral way. Because they remain above suspicion and appear to be honest according to the laws of the land, which in many countries are enacted for the benefit of the upper stratum of society, ordinary people are unable to raise their voices in protest. It can be said that the only path open to them is the path of revolution. People look among the leaders of their country for someone to take up the noble task of protecting ordinary, simple people like themselves from the exploitation of blood-sucking brutes. Those who transform ordinary people into beasts by forcing them to live in extremely difficult circumstances are, in my opinion, the ones who should be put on trial. To burden judges with the trials of those who become criminals due to poverty, is to do an injustice to them. However, it is fallacious to think that the economic structure is the sole cause of crimes committed due to poverty. There are many instances of affluent people also indulging in drink, drugs, gambling, licentiousness, luxurious living, gluttony, etc., in order to forget their psychic problems or to gratify their instincts. Due to their addiction, they lose their wealth and finally get into debt to finance their bad habits. Eventually, when it becomes impossible for them to pay off their debts, they get involved in a wide variety of criminal activities which have a highly deleterious effect on society. Privation is clearly the superficial cause of such crimes, but society is not responsible for this type of privation as it is entirely self-created. It is imperative to take corrective measures to reform such types of criminal. In order to be able to reform them, it is essential to cure them of their addiction. (5) Criminals out of Momentary Weakness Another type of crime occurs occasionally. This is a temporary criminal urge, a special type of mental disease which suddenly appears in a certain type of environment and again subsides after a short time. Kleptomania is an example of this kind of mental disease. After committing a crime kleptomaniacs feel ashamed and are anxious to return the property that they have stolen to the owner. They have sudden fantasies about stealing, abducting people, becoming drunk or indulging in decadent activities. But analysis shows that they do not in fact have the slightest personal interest in such things. Usually weak-minded people who have witnessed larceny, murder or any other crime, are deeply affected by their experience, and due to the ensuing extreme agitation that occurs in their minds, they deviate from the path of common sense. If the feeling of mental agitation recurs due to the influence of temporal, spatial or personal factors, they will immediately commit a crime. If a person who is not actually a thief constantly thinks about stealing and about the various techniques that can be used to steal, it may happen that he or she will begin to talk in a way that will give people the impression that he or she is really a thief. After witnessing a brutal murder, sometimes such weak-minded people begin to think of themselves as criminals, and under the influence of such thoughts, they conceal some clothing, a dead body or parts of a body, or some other items in their houses, and then start describing the modus operandi of the crime to others. They will say, “I dragged the person away like this; I stabbed him like that;” etc. In such circumstances it will not be surprising if the police regard the person as a criminal and if, after listening to the testimony of witnesses and seeing the evidence, the judge takes action against him or her. In such cases if there is even the slightest defect in the confidential enquiries, the proficiency of the police or the insight of the judge – any of the three – in all probability an innocent person will be punished. Poverty is the root cause of most crimes, but it is not the only cause. Even if the economic structure is sound, other factors which cause crimes may be present, jeopardizing social peace and discipline. With the eradication of poverty, crimes caused by keeping bad company and by personal difficulties may to some extent decrease, but there will be little decline in the number of crimes committed by born criminals or habitual criminals. If we undertake a rational analysis of the causes of crimes and a scientific categorization of these causes, what stands out most is the variety of the propensities of the human mind and the weakness or strength of the mind according to changes in time, place or person. As a result those investigating the causes of serious crimes may become confused. The accused could be a criminal who does not fit the previously-established categories. If the crime is grave, it will not be possible to pardon the person or disregard the crime on the grounds that it was committed accidentally or in a moment of weakness. Crimes Involving Cruelty Crimes involving cruelty are generally caused by the following factors: loss of judgement due to intoxication or extreme excitement; jealousy over property or wealth; a severe blow to one’s prestige or the influence of any of the ripus; fights over women; serious differences of opinion. It is possible for a person who lacks mental straightforwardness, though [[that person]] may be a good person, to commit a crime due to any of these factors. But not all crimes are committed in a moment of anger. Even a cool-headed person may be influenced and overwhelmed by any of the factors listed above except the first, and these factors may have disturbed his or her mind for so long that the crime cannot be classified as a crime committed in anger. A cool-headed person with no criminal background may even plan a serious crime as much as six months in advance. The causes of these types of crime, as I mentioned above, lie in the weaknesses of the human mind. The manifestation of malevolent propensities depends on the environment and is subject to differences in time, place or person; sometimes it occurs after a few years and sometimes after a few minutes. When a crime is committed within five or ten minutes of provocation, the offence is generally viewed with leniency because it was committed in a moment of anger. However, where the thought of committing a crime gradually develops over a long period of time, where the offender deliberately becomes intoxicated in the hope of committing the crime with calm nerves, or where the offender gets others intoxicated in order for them to commit a crime with calm nerves, it is rare for the offender to receive clemency. In reality, of course, the crimes of both groups are equal in magnitude, and from the psychological point of view there is only a slight difference between them. Benevolent people may wonder how much value corrective measures have for criminals who, for whatever reason, have not turned into habitual criminals but still do not show any sense of remorse after committing a crime; for first-time offenders who have not produced any type of evidence to demonstrate that circumstantial pressure was the reason for their crime; or for those who have not shown any physical or psychological symptoms which would warrant their being declared mentally ill. In such circumstances experienced judges and social well-wishers would take penal instead of corrective measures. From the moral standpoint, we cannot but support this. Yet when we know that weak-minded people, who are slaves to their lower propensities, have committed and are continuing to commit crimes due to circumstantial pressure created by temporal, spatial and personal factors, is it not society’s duty to make them aware of their wrongdoing and help them to learn how to develop their higher propensities and strengthen their minds? And is it not also the duty of society to ensure that this awakening is a corrective rather than a penal process? Of course it is necessary to retain tough penal measures as a part of the corrective system. Moreover, if punishment has an important place in correcting behaviour, people will, out of fear of being punished, avoid drifting along according to the inclinations of their lower propensities. As a result of this environmental pressure, dishonest people will be compelled to live an honest life and society will be greatly benefited. People who have succumbed to the influence of their base propensities will with society’s sanction get the opportunity to become good. And those who are aware of the influence of their own base propensities will also feel encouraged to keep striving to become internally civilized – to become civilized people in a civilized society. Crime and Politics Calumny, jealousy, factionalism, indolence, grandiloquence, etc., are all social defects which, given a congenial environment, turn people into great criminals. These human defects are glaringly apparent in the modern world; the reason for this is the proclivity to indulge in politics. Politics today is concerned solely with satisfying the desire for power; all connection with selfless service has been lost. Unless the desire for power loosens its grip on the human mind, the unhealthy proclivity for politics will not be eliminated from modern society. Seeing the way in which political involvement gradually transforms people into habitual criminals, benevolent people can no longer afford to stand by and watch. All good people should now work together to formulate a comprehensive, well-thought-out plan for the all-round development of society. If the entire human race turns into habitual criminals, if people are no longer ready to listen with tolerance to the opinions of others, or if they sell their treasures of higher intellect to gain power and prestige, the age-old struggle to build human civilization, and all efforts to discover the value of human existence, will go in vain. Virtue and Vice In most countries crime is defined with reference to a sense of pápa [vice] and puńya [virtue]. These have their roots in the religions of individual countries. For example, English people customarily believe that suicide is one of the gravest sins. According to the customary belief of Indians, suicide is considered to be a sin, but it is not a grave sin. And the Japanese do not consider suicide to be a sin at all. That is why the penal codes of these three countries are different. In Japan neither suicide nor attempted suicide constitutes a crime, and thus neither is a punishable offence. In India today the attempt to commit suicide is a crime, but suicide itself is not, hence only the attempt to commit suicide is a punishable offence. And in England the attempt to commit suicide and actual suicide are both crimes, hence both are considered to be punishable offences.(3) So those who rend the air arguing about virtue and vice are not usually listened to outside their own countries. Ideas about virtue and vice are based on one or both of the following factors: different religious beliefs, and traditional or contemporary social beliefs created by factors other than religion. These ideas change not only according to place, but also according to time and person. In ancient India, for example, people used to burn defenceless widows to death without a twinge of conscience. The thought that this might be a sinful or unlawful act never entered their minds. Indians of that time believed that those who opposed sati were being antisocial, unpatriotic and sinful. It would not be correct for us to feel hatred or disdain towards those ancient people, living as we do in a different era. Perhaps those who burnt Joan of Arc to death did not commit a crime according to the concept of virtue and vice prevalent at the time. Different concepts of virtue and vice may also coexist in one country. For example, for a Shákta [devotee of Shakti] eating meat is not a sin, but for a Vaeśńava [Vaishnavite, devotee of Viśńu] even to see an animal being slaughtered is a sin; he or she cannot even think of eating meat. Since the concept of virtue and vice is completely relative, it is meaningless to loudly support or oppose the views of a particular community or the laws of a particular country as if they were the absolute truth. Today, therefore, everyone should develop a magnanimous outlook in such matters; otherwise their extreme intolerance will, in the name of spreading religion or of protecting virtue, result, as it did in the Middle Ages, in the entire world being bathed in human blood. No matter what type of government a country has, it is not desirable for the state to blindly follow particular scriptural injunctions relating to virtue and vice. In this era of popular awakening, it will be impossible for the state to maintain its existence if it commits such an error. Virtue and vice are psychic expressions which are defined by changes in time, place and person; a type of mental aberration that one person in one place and at one time calls a sin is considered a virtue by another person in another place at another time. Under these circumstances, what should the basis of legal codes be? If legal codes are based on the different concepts of virtue and vice professed by different groups of people, a question will arise: “If two litigants, a plaintiff and a defendant, belonging to two different communities, appear in court, on which community’s legal code will the judicial process be based?” We can therefore see that crime cannot be defined by legal codes developed according to the concepts of virtue and vice followed by different groups of people. Society will have to define what constitutes a crime and what does not in accordance with a moral standard. I define immorality as that which, in order to further the personal interest of an individual or group, aims to exploit another individual or group or the rest of society, or aims to deprive them of the right to self-preservation. Behaviour based on such immoral intentions is a crime. If the concept of virtue and vice of a particular person or a particular time is taken as absolute, the opportunity to introduce corrective measures into the law will be severely limited and restricted, and this will severely retard the dynamism of that society, leading to chaos and collapse. This is what happened to the ancient Egyptian, Roman, Greek and pre-Buddhist Vedic societies. If there had been no scope for reforming the Indian legal system in this way, sati would still be practised today. This is because, according to ancient beliefs, cremation by sati was considered to be a virtuous act. Every rational person will therefore support giving scope to alterations and additions to legal codes. In India, too, as soon as the social codes of the Vedic Age lost their flexibility due to the intransigence of Aryan vested interests, the Buddhist revolution took place. This significantly raised the consciousness of the people. In a later period, people of all religious affiliations – Buddhist, Jain, etc. – automatically accepted the idea that changes in the social code were desirable, that the concept of virtue and vice would inevitably change according to the needs of the age. Thus we see one kind of social system in the age of the Paráshara Saḿhitá, another in the age of the Rámáyańa, yet another in the age of the Mahábhárata, and still another in the age of the Manu Saḿhitá.(4) Those who think that they can arbitrarily impose their judicial system or legal codes on people with the help of the power of the state, regardless of differences in time, place or person, are mistaken. The principles underlying the legal codes will have to be based on people’s social needs and not on the whims of an individual or group or the biases inherent in a particular concept of virtue and vice. Society is a dynamic entity. It has to progress by endlessly struggling to break through ever-changing barriers. It has to equip itself in different ways to respond to changing conditions and new challenges. Society cannot afford to forget that the type of struggles it had to go through in the past will not be the same as the struggles it has to go through in the present, and that the struggles of today will not be the same as those of the future. Thus, as the environment changes, newer and newer codes of justice will have to be formulated on the basis of the moral code. The duty of those who frame legal codes is to fully recognize the essential characteristics of life and not violate the interests of individuals, groups or society as a whole. Otherwise the codes will be seen as unnatural and will not be accepted, which means that the state will have difficulty in implementing them effectively. (For example, during the British rule of India, the Sarda Act(5) was not properly enforced due to a lack of education.) If a large section of the society is confronted with the possibility of being considered criminals in the eyes of the law, they will engage in deceitful conduct and other antisocial acts to avoid punishment. Thus the standard of morality will decline considerably. Therefore, if such codes are ever formulated, the state will lose its credibility and become the laughing-stock of society. If somebody commits a violent crime, generally he or she will not receive any sympathy from the public. But if somebody chooses the path of violence to protest against practices which are abhorred by his or her fellow citizens, he or she will, in all likelihood, enjoy popular support. The Judicial System Although the system of capital punishment is unacceptable from the moral viewpoint, people do sometimes resort to this custom under specific circumstances. It does not contain any corrective measures and has no purpose other than to instil fear into people’s minds. Therefore the practice of taking a life for a life out of anger cannot be accepted in a civilized social system. Even if somebody is a genuine criminal who has no public support (no matter how notorious a criminal he or she may be, he or she is still a human being), should not he or she have an opportunity to become an asset to society? It is possible that although the person fails to evoke our sympathy because of the seriousness of his or her crimes, he or she may sincerely repent and be prepared to dedicate the rest of his or her life to the genuine service of society. Furthermore, if those who commit crimes are afflicted with a mental disease, is it not our duty to cure them of their disease instead of sentencing them to death? Most civilized countries follow the line of reasoning that criminals who commit a crime on the spur of the moment are to be treated with comparative leniency. Other types of criminals as well can hope, on the same line of reasoning, to receive comparatively good treatment. Should decapitation be prescribed as the cure for a headache? Some people argue that if criminals who commit serious offences are not given capital punishment, they will have to be sentenced to life imprisonment, because few countries have the facilities to cure them of their mental disease. But such a decision may cause overcrowding in the prisons. Is it possible for the state to provide so many people with food and clothing? Rather I would ask, “Why should such criminals live off the state at all?” The state will have to see to it that it receives suitable work from them. And after the completion of their sentence, the state should sincerely make arrangements to find them employment so that they will be able to earn an honest living. A prison should therefore be just like a reform school, and the superintendent should be a teacher who is trained in psychology and who has genuine love for society. Hence a jailer should possess no less ability than a judge. To appoint a person to this post on the basis of a degree he or she has earned from some university or according to his or her capacity to please a superior, would be most detrimental. If those charged with antisocial activities and sentenced to prison experience daily injustices, feel a lack of open-heartedness from others, or receive less food and poorer-quality food than that sanctioned by the government, their criminal tendencies and maliciousness will develop and manifest all the more. In this context yet another thought comes to mind. If a criminal is imprisoned for a serious crime, what will happen to his or her dependents? They will still have to somehow go on living. The boys of the family may join a gang of pickpockets and the girls may take to prostitution. In other words, by trying to punish a single criminal, ten more criminals may be created. Thus when sentencing a criminal, one will have to take into consideration the financial condition of the members of his or her family, and the state will have to provide them with the means to earn an honest living. If the judicial system is to be totally accessible to the public, ordinary people will have to be able to afford it. Therefore one of the most important things to do is to increase the number of judges. It is true more or less everywhere in the world that judges, due to pressure of work, are often compelled to adjourn cases. I do not completely oppose the practice of adjournment, because at times an adjournment can be advantageous to innocent people. But it can be of equal value to criminals who get the opportunity to tamper with evidence, to influence witnesses and to find false witnesses. This cannot be denied. Experienced judges know if and when it is necessary to adjourn a case in the interests of the public, but if the public interest is not served by this measure, no judge in all conscience should adjourn a case simply due to pressure of work. It is therefore essential to increase the number of judges. Increasing the number of judges is not, however, an easy matter. It requires a thorough examination and careful selection of candidates. Relatively simple and ordinary cases can even be entrusted to responsible citizens. To deal with such cases it is not a bad idea to employ honorary magistrates. However, these honorary magistrates will also have to exhibit a highly-developed sense of responsibility at the time of discharging their duties. In countries where they are selected from among business people who have made a quick fortune or from among known sycophants, they will be mere liabilities to the people. I once heard a story about an ever-so-learned judge who delivered judgements for and against defendants according to the nostril his clerk used to inhale snuff. Needless to say, whoever passed sufficient money to the clerk would win the case. As members of a civilized society in the twentieth century, we would like to see such an occurrence as a story from the past, not as a feature of modern life. The Need for a Spiritual Ideal The proverb “Prevention is better than cure” may be applied to all aspects of life. It is undeniable that, when we see the variety and seriousness of crimes increasing with the so-called advancement of civilization, it becomes necessary for crime-prevention policies to be given greater importance than remedial action. Civilized people today should be more interested in preventing base criminal propensities from arising in human beings in the first place, than in taking corrective measures to cure criminals’ mental diseases. “Good” or “bad”, “virtue” or “vice” from the worldly standpoint not withstanding, people act in order to attain happiness. We judge people’s actions as “good” and “bad”, “virtue” and “vice”, only after evaluating those actions in terms of a goal and steps to reach that goal. It is true that the majority of people are not born dishonest. Although there are differences among people insofar as their goals and their efforts to reach their goals – differences caused by defects in their bodies’ various glands – I do not believe that this situation cannot be corrected through collective effort. If one’s goal is a pure and pervasive one, then the defects in the process of attaining the goal can never transform a person into a sub-human creature. And if these efforts are in harmony with people’s psychology, this will be extremely beneficial. As a result many people will harmonize the rhythm of their diverse ideas and ideologies and progress together, thereby gradually transforming the inherent individualism and disparity of social life into one symphonic chord, one unified rhythm, which will become the genuine prototype of a healthy human society. This idea of oneness is fundamentally a spiritual idea. Individually and collectively human beings will have to accept the Supreme and the path to realize the Supreme as the highest truth, and this will have to be recognized as the highest goal of human life. As long as human beings do not do so, the human race will find it impossible to implement a sound, well-thought-out plan of action for social progress. No penal or social code, no matter how well-planned, can liberate society. Without a spiritual ideal, no social, economic, moral, cultural or political policy or programme can bring humanity to the path of peace. The sooner humanity understands this fundamental truth, the better. Virtue and vice are both distortions of the mind. That which may be considered good in one particular temporal, spatial or personal environment may be considered bad in another. A country generally bases its penal code on the concept of virtue and vice which prevails in that country, and the concept of virtue and vice in turn is based on accepted religious doctrines. In my opinion virtue is that which helps to expand the mind, by whose assistance the universe increasingly becomes an integral part of oneself, and vice is that which makes the mind narrow and selfish. And the realm to which the mind of a person engaged in virtuous activities travels, is heaven, and the realm where the mind of a sinner races about in a wild frenzy, is hell. I do not see any reason to discuss the ideas contained in the various religious scriptures. A Universal Penal Code Finally, it is my sincere belief that, except for those social problems which are caused by geographical factors, the solution to all complex social problems may be found by implementing a universal penal code, one which is applicable to all humanity. It is not desirable for different laws to bind different peoples, countries or communities. All human beings laugh when they are happy, cry when they are sad and mourn when they feel despair, and all need food, clothing and housing; so why should people be separated from each other by artificial distinctions? The constitution of the world should be drafted by a global organization recognized by the people, otherwise the possibility exists that at any moment a minority in a country might be persecuted. Everyone knows that when a revolutionary is victorious in the political struggle of a country, he or she will be considered a patriot, and when a revolutionary is defeated, he or she will face death and be branded as a traitor despite his or her innocence. In nearly every country the law is based on the opinions of powerful people, and their autocratic style cannot be questioned. But is such a situation desirable? Does this not undermine civilization? That is why I contend that laws must be drafted by a global organization, and, further, that the supreme authority to judge or to try a person should be vested in that organization. If that global organization then refrains from interfering in the internal affairs of countries, powerless groups or individuals will be forced to lead the lives of virtual slaves, in spite of written assurances that they are free. Footnotes (1) The ripus, or śad́aripus (six enemies), are underlying mental weaknesses which cause immense harm to people. They are: káma (physical desire); krodha (anger); lobha (avarice); mada (vanity); moha (blind attachment or infatuation); and mátsarya (jealousy). –Trans. (2) In the Dáyabhága system the heirs’ right of inheritance is subject to the discretion of the father, who has the right to disinherit any of the heirs. –Trans. (3) After the Suicide Act 1961 was passed by the British Parliament, it was no longer an offence to commit suicide under English law. –Trans. (4) These books contain mainly stories and codes of conduct. (While they have all provided social and ethical guidance to Indian society in their respective periods, only the Rámáyańa and the Mahábhárata continue to be extremely popular today.) –Trans. (5) The Sarda Act was intended to prevent the marriage of girls below the age of fourteen. –Trans. 1959 Published in: Human Society Part 1 Prout in a Nutshell Part 2 [a compilation] Supreme Expression Volume 2 [a compilation] The Great Universe: Discourses on Society [a compilation] Universal Humanism [a compilation]