This is completely unacceptable. Even if we assume we are legally helpless against corruption like that to which the preceding post refers, why is it being passed by with this low level of publicly pointing it out? The need to be restricted by a law should not be confused as implying that it is better not to criticize a thing as long as it does not violate the law. The power a society has through public shaming and preventing the unjust conduct or behaviour from mixing itself with the rest and appearing undistinguishable should be far from being ignored or underestimated like this, especially wherever and whenever the law cant reach or fails to reach. Beginning with those who are closest to the field where the wrong was done, making such criticisms with their unofficial capacities could be even more required from those who themselves are employed by the government. For example, what prevents honest prosecutors from voicing out their true opinions about such an outrageous dealing with a case, to the maximum allowed by law? Do they think that the system as a whole is served better by extending the restriction of having an official role to include their views and opinions regardless of the level of corruption they see in other jurisdictional domains?
No comments:
Post a Comment