By S. Savi
In the accusation of legal offence perpetrated, the litigator has right to offer subpoena to the accused and to resolve the case on legal establishment: in the court or through an arbitrator (for personal reasons). This act of announcing legal offences has to be established on the grounds of truth and right. If the litigator has enough credential materials to support his/her claim, the accused has the right to defend but the publicity of the case is insured on the grounds that, either the accused has been proved of his legal misconduct and convicted or the litigator has made a baseless accusation and dragged the status quo of the accused into questioning authority without proper undertaking.
But allegation and accusation are subjected to open interpretation and reception because if any unnatural legally wrong conduct has been enacted, it should be matter of direct communication until the issue has been resolved, and the parties involved and the people would retract the judgment based on the comprehensive conclusion derived from the verdict, and this way the parties involved could go back to their normal lives, either convicted or absolved, without having to endure stigma and stereotype. How possibly can anyone justify or defend allegation when insinuation are perpetuated and the individual or party is but condemned to degradation and this writer thinks that this is counter intuitive to legal system, when without opportunity by instigating insinuation. But the question here for those who practice law is, can defamation be insinuated? If issues related to accusation and defamation are insinuated, unless the insinuation has been deciphered the perpetrator may give under the presumption that in legal platforms witty lingo and direct address are two different things. When in fact, ‘what and why’ if any insinuation has been perpetuated will reinforce the motive that has legal merit or is a subject to narrow outlook and bias misconduct, if and when perused.
During instances of being accused of using lingo to intimidate the opponent during discourse, ‘was the lingo bias and socially intolerant?’, and if appeared to be, ‘can the speaker attest the unconscious and honest one sense of the interpretation by even confirming from the methods that deduces in order to unravel confirmation.’ However accidents and perpetuation are two distinct coins. The reason this writer felt the need to write about this is because no political public platforms have speakers that assails the opponent on bias and socially intolerant grounds to degrade him/her off due to personal difference/intolerance and earn public confidence. In fact in practicality, resorting to unprofessional and narrow-minded judgment and tools remain unbecoming of the credibility of the speakers, not to mention litigated.
The reason public platform are subjected to structural unbiased procedures is because, politics is about the right measure, expression, direction etc. and to contest for political mileage or political expression of views is a liability for every citizen, but to achieve status quo or credibility by resorting to unprofessional assailments is illegitimate and no democratic nation entertains such gimmicks. If any connoisseur of practical law and natural justice finds this write-up as ill-interpretation of legal system and disruption of the very fabric of legal justice system and justice itself, to something that is grossly unlawful, or that this is just an elucidation of how legal procedures are maintained and practiced by law abiding citizens especially in well structured nations, your feedbacks are anticipated for both personal and collective comprehension and grasping of legal system.
