Back home, when reporters write an article highlighting a
bureaucratic or government absurdity, they usually try to find a sympathetic
victim of said absurdity. Say you’re writing an article about how jails are
filled with old people who are nonthreatening and unlikely to recidivate. You
probably find the 60-year-old man who got 40 years for stealing a pack of bread
at age 25 to feed his starving family.
That’s what I expected when I started reading, “Jailhouse Shock” in the Feb. 20 edition of India Today magazine. The subhead said, “They are people with a criminal past. They are also very old now. Some of them are so weak that they can’t walk without assistance. Yet the state regards these geriatrics in Rajasthan’s jails as threats to society and insists on keeping them in.”
The first guy the article highlighted, Omar Mohammad, fit the bill. He’s 90 and has been behind bars for 2 years and 2 months. He was convicted in 1985 for a robbery attempt, escaped after 20 months in jail, and then was rearrested in December 2010.
Then I read about the others that the article focused on. Anop Singh Rajput, 73, behind bars 12 years for killing her daughter-in-law. Sharbati Meena, 75, in jail for eight years for burning her daughter-in-law to death. Badlu Ram, 87, behind bars seven years for beating a man to death with sticks along with his two sons. With the exception of Omar Mohammad, all of the people cited in the story had been convicted of murder.
I get the story’s point that most of these people, who need assistance for simple tasks such as walking and using the toilet, may no longer be a danger to society. “Does it serve any purpose to keep geriatrics jailed?” Rajasthan’s Director General of Prisons said in the article.
But the following paragraph just feels ironic. “Also in Jaipur Central Jail is Jeevan Ram, 80, who killed his neighbour in 1991 over a land dispute. He remained on bail till 2001 when he was convicted for life along with 13 relatives. ‘It is not an age to be in jail. It is time to be with grandchildren,’ he says.” That quote is designed to make me feel sympathy for the guy, but I don’t since you just told me he killed a neighbor with the help of 13 relatives.
At least acknowledge at some point that these are repellant crimes! “While these are admittedly heinous crimes, the fact remains that there are X people over age 70 in jail…” The article didn’t have that. Nor did it ever show that any of these people were remorseful for the murders.
The story ended by saying that Rajasthan officials are implementing a new policy making it easier for older convicts to be cared for by their younger convict relatives. “In the larger framework of working towards a more humane, compassionate society, this could be a small beginning.”
That’s what I expected when I started reading, “Jailhouse Shock” in the Feb. 20 edition of India Today magazine. The subhead said, “They are people with a criminal past. They are also very old now. Some of them are so weak that they can’t walk without assistance. Yet the state regards these geriatrics in Rajasthan’s jails as threats to society and insists on keeping them in.”
The first guy the article highlighted, Omar Mohammad, fit the bill. He’s 90 and has been behind bars for 2 years and 2 months. He was convicted in 1985 for a robbery attempt, escaped after 20 months in jail, and then was rearrested in December 2010.
Then I read about the others that the article focused on. Anop Singh Rajput, 73, behind bars 12 years for killing her daughter-in-law. Sharbati Meena, 75, in jail for eight years for burning her daughter-in-law to death. Badlu Ram, 87, behind bars seven years for beating a man to death with sticks along with his two sons. With the exception of Omar Mohammad, all of the people cited in the story had been convicted of murder.
I get the story’s point that most of these people, who need assistance for simple tasks such as walking and using the toilet, may no longer be a danger to society. “Does it serve any purpose to keep geriatrics jailed?” Rajasthan’s Director General of Prisons said in the article.
But the following paragraph just feels ironic. “Also in Jaipur Central Jail is Jeevan Ram, 80, who killed his neighbour in 1991 over a land dispute. He remained on bail till 2001 when he was convicted for life along with 13 relatives. ‘It is not an age to be in jail. It is time to be with grandchildren,’ he says.” That quote is designed to make me feel sympathy for the guy, but I don’t since you just told me he killed a neighbor with the help of 13 relatives.
At least acknowledge at some point that these are repellant crimes! “While these are admittedly heinous crimes, the fact remains that there are X people over age 70 in jail…” The article didn’t have that. Nor did it ever show that any of these people were remorseful for the murders.
The story ended by saying that Rajasthan officials are implementing a new policy making it easier for older convicts to be cared for by their younger convict relatives. “In the larger framework of working towards a more humane, compassionate society, this could be a small beginning.”
1 comment:
"It is not an age to be in jail. It is time to be with grandchildren."
What a family man!
Post a Comment