And who should be more experienced than you, “being a lawyer” yourself.

Firstly, I would advise you to read what has been written in the by the author, and in my comments. The “article” here is not an argumentative essay by a tenth grade student. It is an opinion. An opinion is a view a person holds. When an opinion is given, it need not always be a solution, or even suggest a solution. For example, in my opinion, while we (the author and me) were drinking at the fountain of knowledge, you were busy gargling (“being a lawyer”, you were probably getting your throat clear for your next “argument” in court). But when I state my opinion, I am under no obligation to suggest, in it, a solution. It is like giving an address to someone. How that person reaches, whether or not he knows the direction, or how he will ultimately find it, or even bothers to reach, is another story altogether. Giving an opinion, and leaving it at that, may at times help in the development of new opinions, provided the reader is capable of thinking, and isn’t as lazy, just waiting to be convinced, as you believe them to be. If they are, as you come across as saying, just waiting to be convinced, so much so that everything written must be convincing them of something or the other, then wouldn’t that make them fickle, irresponsible, inconstant?

Secondly, the quotation marks where doing what their names suggest of them- quoting, namely, you. And I wasn’t “maybe” “trying” to mock you— I was mocking you, whether or not the “basis” was “a very western concept of what a lawyer should be”, is irrelevant.

Thirdly, ‘collective human conscience’ is, I agree, a theory, and so is ‘democracy’. If you say that ‘collective human conscience’ is an “utopian ideal”, you must also consider the fact that ‘democracy’, too, is no different, and can, therefore, as you, yourself, put it, cannot “translate into reality”. But, all this aside, I’d like to point out that I did not say that “collective human conscience can be used as a method to identify those who may contest in collections (??)”. I said that whether or not they (those who are contesting in elections, not collections) have criminal tendencies may be judged by collective human conscience.

As for your apprehensions about you first post, don’t worry; I was apprehensive about it as well— I didn’t know people with such puny intellects existed [but then all I had to do was scroll a wee bit higher and check out Ms. Sood’s posts— which were (and this is the correct usage of your clichéd phrase) “full of teenage angst”].

Your posts have not “degenerated” into anything. You’ve got to be blind not to notice how brilliantly entertaining our exchange has been. But you can go ahead with being a spoilsport escapist and recuse yourself from this fencing tournament. ‘Tis sad, though— “being a lawyer”, I thought you’d put up a better show.

Lastly, you should try to appreciate pieces/articles/opinions or whatever you read at being pieces of literature, at some level, at least. By that I mean you should try to appreciate style, wit, humour, even sarcasm— and not always be a spoilsport and try to throw your weight, your e-mail id, or your familiarity with the Indian law around. “Please take this as constructive advice.”

I was extremely apprehensive about writing the first post itself because I was afraid it might degenerate into something like this. So this shall be my last post. Anyone wishing to contact me may do it at whatziznehm@gmail.com. Taking the advice of an old proverb I recuse myself from this conversation. The proverb goes, if I am not mistaken as:
“Never argue with a fool. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”.

Secondly, what exactly do you have against an American concept of a lawyer? Or do you just have a problem that they have posh four wheelers and a jury to aid them, while you have nothing but free time to look around for what you consider an “un-researched” opinion.

Thirdly, your thoughts on the “entire purpose” of the law keep changing from comment to comment, and so shall be ignored. Considering you do keep your nose buried in moldy law books, you might as well keep your eyes on it, read it and retain it, as well.

Next, what’s wrong with purporting an upper middle class urbanite viewpoint, anyway? If you can speak on the behalf of hawkers, why can’t someone else speak on behalf of the people he wishes to represent?

Also, why must an article or an opinion “take into account what the other groups may think on that issue as well”? The article you have commented on is an individual’s own opinion. If he decides to include what you and the hawkers have to say, how will it be his opinion any longer? Have you not noticed the writer of the article has begun, and carried on, his article stating that it is his opinion? If not, do you not notice that the article is written in the first person, with the first person singular “I” and “me”? If not, have you not even noticed that he begins with a personal anecdote? Or were you too busy straining with the “trouble” of peeping out of your moldy law books in which you bury yourself with eyes closed shut?

As for your questions, they’re incorrectly framed. For, in questions 2. & 3., you have already assumed that I have offered “me” as an answer to question 1., which is, of course, incorrect. Whether they are potential criminals can be discovered by their actions, and the consequences of those actions. The discovery helps in the decision. And the basis of the decision is the collective human conscience, which has the ability to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal traits, and categorize accordingly.

@Hanedin- Exactly. Thank you.