My reaction to this case and the judgement as a common and responsible citizen rests on the following two grounds:
1. That the judgement passed by the bench of the Supreme Court is against my own moral instincts and according to me, pure injustice has been served to the survivor which in this case is Pi.
2. Only Judge Forster’s opinions and views apply in this case and according to me, the current statutes and laws are inapplicable to this case, as it is an exceptional and unique case. Thus, we need to draft new laws and legislations on the basis of arguments put forward by Judge Forster.
To come to such conclusions and to form such arguments, I have paid attention to my moral rather than legal instincts. My moral instincts tell me whenever …show more content…
As a consequence of that, the established principles of law cannot be applied to them, but the law derived from those principles that were appropriate to their situation. He goes on to state that we usually don’t apply the legal maxim Cessante Ratione Legis, Cessat Ipsa Lex (Latin: The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases), but it needs to be applied to this case. Thus, as Pi was in a ‘state of nature’ rather than a ‘state of civil society’, in my view Pi hasn’t done ANYTHING wrong. Rather, I think it was uncivil and inhumane to punish him for an act in which he had no choice but to take another person’s life in order to survive and sustain …show more content…
He states that the executive is separated from the judiciary. Thus the judiciary cannot tell or order the executive to perform a particular function, which in this case was granting executive clemency to the survivors, as stated by Chief Justice Truepenny. He goes on to say that he, as a private citizen, wants Pi to be pardoned altogether. But as a Judge he cannot tell the executive what to do and the Chief Executive has to reach a decision on his own. He chides Truepenny for requesting clemency when it is not his job to do so. It should be left to the discretion of the Chief Executive. Secondly, asks whether the act committed by him was “right” or “wrong”. He relinquishes all his morals and goes on to state that as Pi “wilfully” took the life of the cook, then according to the written law he has to be punished by death. But this is a wrong argument as the law is not taking into account the special circumstances of the case. Even as a judge, he is expected to be compassionate. He has to place himself in the shoes of the survivor and think what he would have done in his place. Undoubtedly, Pi tried everything to survive. But when the cook killed his mother and the sailor he was left with no choice. His sense of survival was threatened and he finally let his body and desires overcome his mind and rational thinking. There might also have been a part of him that wanted revenge
1. That the judgement passed by the bench of the Supreme Court is against my own moral instincts and according to me, pure injustice has been served to the survivor which in this case is Pi.
2. Only Judge Forster’s opinions and views apply in this case and according to me, the current statutes and laws are inapplicable to this case, as it is an exceptional and unique case. Thus, we need to draft new laws and legislations on the basis of arguments put forward by Judge Forster.
To come to such conclusions and to form such arguments, I have paid attention to my moral rather than legal instincts. My moral instincts tell me whenever …show more content…
As a consequence of that, the established principles of law cannot be applied to them, but the law derived from those principles that were appropriate to their situation. He goes on to state that we usually don’t apply the legal maxim Cessante Ratione Legis, Cessat Ipsa Lex (Latin: The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases), but it needs to be applied to this case. Thus, as Pi was in a ‘state of nature’ rather than a ‘state of civil society’, in my view Pi hasn’t done ANYTHING wrong. Rather, I think it was uncivil and inhumane to punish him for an act in which he had no choice but to take another person’s life in order to survive and sustain …show more content…
He states that the executive is separated from the judiciary. Thus the judiciary cannot tell or order the executive to perform a particular function, which in this case was granting executive clemency to the survivors, as stated by Chief Justice Truepenny. He goes on to say that he, as a private citizen, wants Pi to be pardoned altogether. But as a Judge he cannot tell the executive what to do and the Chief Executive has to reach a decision on his own. He chides Truepenny for requesting clemency when it is not his job to do so. It should be left to the discretion of the Chief Executive. Secondly, asks whether the act committed by him was “right” or “wrong”. He relinquishes all his morals and goes on to state that as Pi “wilfully” took the life of the cook, then according to the written law he has to be punished by death. But this is a wrong argument as the law is not taking into account the special circumstances of the case. Even as a judge, he is expected to be compassionate. He has to place himself in the shoes of the survivor and think what he would have done in his place. Undoubtedly, Pi tried everything to survive. But when the cook killed his mother and the sailor he was left with no choice. His sense of survival was threatened and he finally let his body and desires overcome his mind and rational thinking. There might also have been a part of him that wanted revenge