Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

CA CS CIMA Adv Dip MA Prakash (CA CS CIMA)     17 July 2009

CAn you decide this simple case

Please see this case and let me know your judgement on the same :)



Learning

 20 Replies


(Guest)

 That was a really gud 1

1 Like

Carlisle Collins (Samaritan)     17 July 2009

Thank you for a very thought provoking presentation which deserves to be reciprocated by a similar test of sound decision making! Here’s something I had written a while ago elsewhere:

You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus: 1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die. 2. An old friend who once saved your life. 3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car? Think before you continue reading. This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first. Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.

The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer. He simply answered: "I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams."

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box."

 

....HOWEVER....

The correct answer is to run the old lady over and put her out of her misery, have s*x with the perfect partner on the hood of the car, then drive off with the old friend for a post-coital commentary over a few beers in a stag bar.

Manish Singh (Advocate)     18 July 2009

Dear Mr. Pankaj

it was wonderful.... a hard reality of life... i completely agree with ur views....

thaks  a lot for this enlightment..

Manish

1 Like

Manish Singh (Advocate)     18 July 2009

Oh... sorry.. for putting down wrong name...

Dear Mr. Somani thanks  a lot for this wonderful message,, we must understand and apply thisif we really want to grow as a whole...

Manish

 

 

sanjeev murthy desai (Advocate)     18 July 2009

Dear Mr. Somani,

It is very sounds intersted. thanks for sharing with me

sanjeev desai

 

 

G. ARAVINTHAN (Legal Consultant / Solicitor)     19 July 2009

 Yes we need to get support the person on right stand ...

1 Like

ritu bhadana (advocate)     19 July 2009

 its Really great........my opinion was actually the wrong one b4 i read the whole story.......but its really thought provoking and makes us realise that how majority generally overpowers the minority on prejudicial moral notions......thanks for motivating the judgemental power. Thanks a lot.

CA CS CIMA Adv Dip MA Prakash (CA CS CIMA)     21 July 2009

Do you need more ???

aruntrivedi (lawyer)     22 July 2009

very nice loudablen - thanks

1 Like

Daljeet Singh (Lawyer (a new comer))     29 July 2009

Hello Somani,

I made the concurrent choice though I don't agree to majority- minority logic. I made the choice of letting the train go on its usual track because the children playing there would be alert for arrival of the train. It may be a riddle for westerns but not for us as it is normal course of the life here. Children use to play on tracks and roads, most of times prepared and alert for the traffic.

 

 I beg to differ with minority majority logic. From this riddle no generalization can be drawn to this effect. It would differ from case to case. Practically, no tracks are changed judging emotionally. When it comes to bigger "social" issues, usually the 'minority' and 'majority' interests are 'made' or 'flattened' to clash with each other. Normally, it is a rare condition when choice comes up as to crush either of the two. Say, if it is an issue of the 'democratic' society, then why to make a choice between either crushing more or less children. This is, I am sorry, ridiculous choice, for a society or community to make. A true democratic system would not make rules or guidelines to decide whom to crush for sake of whom? (As this riddle is suggesting.) It would make guidelines and arrangements for prohibiting the children to play    on the track. For a democracy, the question should be - why lots of children don't have schools, parks and playgrounds not how to make choice whom to crush? A true democracy would invest in making schools, Parks and play grounds.

BANKIMCHANDRA SHAH ADVOCATE & NOTARY (SENIOR ADVOCATE NOTARY & LEGAL CONSULTANT HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALLY EXPERT LAWYER GUJARAT HIGH COURT SURAT INDIA)     15 November 2009

 A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. THANKS.

Ria (Legal)     20 November 2009

Hi Prakash,

Thanks a lot for this article. Its really wonderful. Actually reading this I remember somewhat similar  principle of law  though not same  - 'One innocent man should not be punished though thousands of guilty are allowed to escape.'

But it is always the other way round, the majority always wins and the interest of the minority is always sacrificed as they are small in number, therefore week.

 

 

modassir nasim (lawyer)     24 October 2010

very good.

an eye opener to those who give their decisions without giving it a second thought and jump to a conclusion immediately.

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Advocacy)     25 October 2010

It is very good to see some old friends as-Mr.Prakash ji, Arun trivedi sir, Nirav Pankaj ,aravinthan and offcourse manish  ji with all togather!

great great great.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query