For his merciless skewering of the ignorant shrill
License to…Hic! and Retributions point to the interview where Ram Jethmalani took on a shrill reporter who confused public opinion (and those of television channels—its self-appointed proxy) for the judicial system. Why, she wanted to know, had the veteran lawyer agreed to represent a murderer so clearly guilty and so clearly reviled?
Jethmalani tells her why. Required reading for the many who believe majority opinion can blindly negate individual rights.
Sagarika Ghose: But what makes you so convinced about the innocence of Manu Sharma?
Ram Jethmalani: I donâ€™t have to convince myself. I am only convinced that the man is entitled to a fair trial. He is entitled to the services of a good lawyer. Courts will decide and no Pressman, no editor or (television crew) will decide. [CNN-IBN]
The “liberal” media’s position on serious crime suffers from a logical inconsistency. On the one hand they argue that it is wrong to provide the best legal representation for those accused of the most serious of crimes. On the other they contend that the sorts of Mohd Afzal must be granted clemency because, among other things, they didn’t get a fair trial. This is exactly the opposite of what constitutes a just legal system, and that is to give the accused the best legal defence and then punish those found guilty. Without, of course, the accompanying media circus.