In one of my earlier blogs, I opined that, how the dilemma of trial can be circumvented by deciding at the time of framing of charges, the outcome, rather moving that to in future trial, because that is a mathematically driven resolution, which is incoherent with the subject of law that stands on the substrata of philosophy also. How? I give you some examples.
There’s a concept of prima-facie & discharged, which is analogous to Physics, according to me. Like, most of the hypothesis in the physics are turned into theory eventually, after peer reviewed. But that peer reviewed in the present era either gets accepted, or, serves no purpose, or eventually gets disavowed, one or the other day. In Physics, we approximately measure the age of universe, size of stars, planets, galaxies, their distances, composition of asteroids, cosmic materials etc., all in being not definite or absolute. Means, we know something to be true, but not absolute, and either needs further instigation, or, its measurement is contentious. Similarly, the Law also included these two terms. But I am going one step ahead to state that the law should also evaluate the broader perspectives, rather than restricted to the technicalities (which should and could be corrected once been pointed out within a particular timeframe), and not going down at the miniscule level, which is of course needed, but, not rigorously. And even beyond the technicalities, it should also evaluate the future intentions (mens rea), despite everything that is measured on paper objectively, is in order! Now that would be true Physics.
For example, if one can discern an individual or a company or an organization on broader scale, and despite it being good or bad, right or wrong, its necessity is needed or not; conduce their prospective evolution in the end; then, taking that into account, decisions may be decreed, which would serve the larger picture.
Now you would say, even in mathematics, there’s concept of approximation, limits; but again, read this blog with a larger perspective, and not being rigorously objective.
In physics, certain constants are used. Thus, we don’t know what would be the absolute outcome of anything, if we remove those constants. Yet, we need these approximations to determine the age of universe, speed of rockets, composition of comets, etc. For example, in the case of 3I-Atlas, the trojan horse from the outer space, everything that measured was in hypothesis, and under approximations, to further study such trojan horses. Similarly, in Law also, you need to see the broader picture, to determine the outcome, especially, its evolution & habits.
And that’s why, when it comes to the trial part, or, determining the issues, then the Law also too much has restricted itself, which should be avoided, as per my opinion. And this is the reason, most of the laws are studied today took inspiration from what was written centuries back, or their case precedence are being considered, which is technically wrong.
Thus, think on a broader scale what is required, despite it being good or bad; what is needed, despite it being ethical or unethical; rather just going through the matrix of everything miniscule, which muzzle its evolution. Imagine, had this approach been taken in Physics, then how the Physics had even evolved?
Of course, if it’s the case of some monetary gains/losses, or, conveyances, or of the similar nature, then every bit counts, and such cases could be considered as exceptions; but, for everything else, a broader picture can be created. Should be created!
Am I missing something?😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment