ARTICLES


                 Different articles regarding different points of law or legal terms are  mentioned below  




Banglapedia Index
Browse by Catagory
Banglapedia Atlas
Banglapedia Shopping
Guest Book
Contact Us
About Banglapedia
Banglapedia in Bengali  
 
Magistrate precursor of modern magistrates are the amils and faujdars of the pre-British period. The faujdari or magisterial powers of the nawab was formally abolished in 1793. But the post of the magistrate of the British brand was created from 1772 with limited powers within the diwani administration. The district collector was also the magistrate up to 1793.
Under the cornwallis code the magisterial powers of the district collector were transferred to the district judge whose designation became District Judge and Magistrate. From 1828, magistracy was taken away from the judge and was attached to the district collector whose designation became District Magistrate and Collector, a status that continued even after the end of the colonial rule.
A Magistrate in field visit
Magistrates are either stipendiary or honorary judges administering criminal justice in petty and less grave offences. They take cognizance of offences either on written complainant by an aggrieved person or on police report or on their own knowledge and information about commission of offences. Police can arrest an offender and investigate into a cognizable offence without any warrant of arrest from or order of investigation by the magistrate, but cannot do so in case of a non-cognizable offence. Grave offences which cannot be tried by the magistrates are sent to the court of Session or such other court or tribunal for trial.
According to power exercised magistrates are of three categories, magistrates of the first class, magistrates of the second class and magistrates of the third class. In every district outside a metropolitan area the deputy commissioner is appointed as the District Magistrate, Additional Deputy Commissioner as the Additional District Magistrate and Joint Deputy Commissioner as the Joint District Magistrate each having power of a magistrate of the first class. Besides, in each district outside the metropolitan area other magistrates of first, second or third class are appointed by the government.
All other magistrates appointed in each district are subordinate to the District Magistrate though Additional District Magistrate and Joint District Magistrate exercise all the powers of the District Magistrate who may distribute business among the subordinate magistrates. A magistrate of the first or second class is placed in charge of an upazila/thana and such a magistrate is called a Upazila/Thana Magistrate and he/she can take cognizance of offences occurring in any part of that thana. Government may confer additional power on any magistrate. In a Metropolitan area Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrates are appointed for exercising powers of magistrates of first class in such area or any part thereof. All other Metropolitan magistrates including the Additional Chief Metropolitan are subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who distributes business among the subordinate magistrates.
Government may appoint any citizen of the country as a Justice of the Peace (honorary magistrate) for any local area. Government may invest the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District Magistrate or any Additional District Magistrate with power to try all offences not punishable with death, and any magistrate of the first class to try all offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years. District magistrate is the head of the magistracy in a district outside the metropolitan area, and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is the head of the magistracy in the metropolitan area and they exercise some additional powers.
At present any magistrate of the first class or metropolitan magistrate may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years including such solitary confinement as is authorised by law and fine not exceeding ten thousand taka and whipping. Any magistrate of the second class may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years including such solitary confinement as is authorised by law and fine not exceeding five thousand taka. Any magistrate of the third class may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and fine not exceeding two thousand taka. The magistrate may award such term of additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine not exceeding one fourth of the period of imprisonment which such magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence. A magistrate invested with the power to try grave offences may pass a higher sentence of imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
[Kazi Ebadul Hoque]
 
Tell a friend:

You are visitor no. 227
©Copyright Banglapedia 2006. All Rights Reserved.
                                                 
        

                                             EQUITY VS. EQUALITY (Part I)


By Rudy Karsan - CEO Kenexa
The highest equality is equity1.
Victor Hugo

We often say that people should be treated equally, when what we actually mean is that they should be treated fairly. Often, however, equal does not necessarily translate to fair. After all, one wouldn't expect two people of different capabilities to perform the same task identically. Say you buy a book on advanced philosophy - you might understand what you are reading, but an average high school student probably wouldn't. Similarly, the average forty-year-old swimmer probably wouldn't be able to swim twenty laps of the pool in the same time as a twenty year old. A teacher might need to spend a lot more time explaining a concept to an average student than he would to a brilliant one. If he spent equal time with both, then neither would benefit - the former might not understand, while the latter would probably be bored. Thus, to ensure that both students perform well and gain from the exercise, the teacher would treat them equitably, according to their different requirements, rather than equally.
Thus, though equality and equity sound similar, they are actually quite different.
Equality implies sameness. Ideally, it would manifest in our world through equal starting points (as in equal opportunities for everyone, which is practically impossible given the diversity of social and economic backgrounds); or in equal access for all to resources (again, this is unlikely without a high degree of societal affluence and philanthropy); or in equal outcomes (also unachievable given the prevailing forms of inequality). Thus, the term equality can only be used in the formal sense to mean every individual's status as a human being who has 'equal rights' to leverage his or her own abilities, talents, etc. to the extent of their own ambition and within the confines of the law and societal mores.
Equality is, however, a useful formal yardstick against which to estimate the more meaningful concept of equity: the notion of fairness and justice and empowerment, of everyone getting a fair deal in the real sense. People who are treated equitably are treated fairly-which may not be equally.
Equity is equality laced with wisdom and judgment.
When people are treated equally, differences are ignored. When they are treated equitably, differences are recognized, celebrated, and made use of to realize each person's potential to the fullest extent possible.
The essential difference between equality and equity is that equity starts with an assumption of difference, of separate starting points, an acknowledgement that people have diverse experiences, values, and abilities. It respects that difference. Despite race, gender, and social snobbery getting in the way, the concept of equity is a more realistic starting point for achieving equal outcomes than equality.
Why Equality?
Equality is often considered the fundamental American value, the sacred value of the country. Political equality has been part of the American mythology ever since the founders of this country created the Constitution - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…"
Noted author and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel, when asked what the American Dream meant to him, said: "Equality in diversity. That no group should be superior in the American society than another."
Nature is unimaginably diverse - no two people are the same. In the entire animate world, there is nothing distantly resembling equality. In fact, there is only diversity to be seen, and this is most obvious in humans. Each individual, despite certain apparent similarities, differs from others in countless ways with unique physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral makeup. No person can ever be equal to another; so the assertion that "all men are created equal" is simply not true. Dr. Ludwig von Mises said "the fact that men are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capacities cannot be argued away. Some surpass their fellow men in health and vigor, in brains and aptitudes, in energy and resolution and are therefore better fitted for the pursuit of earthly affairs than the rest of mankind." Thus, complete equality is unnatural, impossible to achieve, essentially an impossible state. While no one is equal by nature, all should have the freedom to exploit their capabilities without regard to race, religion, disability, and gender. This, while not yet fully realized, is a desired natural state.
The diversity and inequality of human beings forms the basis of much of our civilized social order. If all individuals were the same, there would be no division of labor, no trade, and probably no social intercourse. It is the differences between individuals, not their similarities, which provide us with opportunity for growth and for an ever evolving and richer society. Diversity enables division of labor, makes trade possible, and is the very bedrock of our survival in a myriad ways.
Even when the difficulties and the impossibility of social equality are obvious, the proponents of equality demand, not equality per se, but "equality of opportunity." Most often this is defined in a very loose fashion as a sense of fair play necessary in playing the "game of life." There have been large strides made toward equality in the US - but attention should now be focused toward equity, which is a more achievable state.
Friedrich Hayek, one of the twentieth century's leading capitalist economists and a winner of the Nobel Prize, once said, "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.
American society has been based on the idea of equality of opportunity for each individual rather than equality of results. This has, if anything, grown stronger over time. Although a reasonably progressive tax system and a network of redistributive social programs serve to smooth extreme disparities, these interventions generally play a smaller role than in most other industrialized nations. There is an emphasis on establishing a fair process to guide the initial competition rather than on altering the distribution of rewards. Public efforts in the United States have been directed toward creating a "level playing field," on which all individuals have equal opportunity regardless of race, sex, nationality, or religion; and equipping individuals with the tools necessary for success by widening access to education.
Historically, the ideal of equal opportunity in the United States has been so grossly compromised by differential treatment of particular groups that much of the nation's political energy has been engaged by efforts to put right these injustices.
Since individuals vary so much, equality of opportunity is simply not feasible. What equality of opportunity can there be, for example, between two people, one extremely intelligent but sickly, and the other in perfect health but not particularly clever? Is it not obvious that they will have different roles in life, that no amount of equal opportunity will enable to achieve the same outcomes, and that what they need is unequal opportunities in accord with their unequal aptitudes? Just as no equality of hereditary endowment is possible, neither is a truly equal environment.
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) is a term used by the federal government to refer to employment practices that ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national origin, physical or mental ability, medical condition, ancestry, or age. In other words, everyone should have the same access to opportunities. Affirmative action is one aspect of the government's efforts to ensure EEO, its purpose being to promote fairness and address the effects of past discrimination in employment by encouraging targeted outreach efforts to attract underutilized minorities and women.
The United States political system has enacted numerous policies to ensure the equality promised to all the people of the nation. Policy makers fight every day about a person's ability to receive the same equal opportunities and equal results (or outcomes) as everyone else. The difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes, however, must be clearly distinguished. An employer who offers equal opportunity does not discriminate based on a person's race, creed, or disability, and so makes sure that everyone has a chance to achieve a certain outcome. Equal outcomes means making sure that everyone ends up at the same place. Equal outcome can be considered discriminatory because it looks at a person's race, creed, or disability in order to place them where they can finish the race at the same time. Each of these policies has benefited society. Equal Opportunity Employment has made it possible for people of all races to enter the national workforce, and so diversified the workplace. Equal Outcome policies have made strides to ensure that all races, creeds, and peoples with disabilities are proportionally represented in the workplace, giving minorities the motivation to strive for the best and eventually eliminate the need for an equal outcome policy.
However, equal opportunity policies that focus more on equal outcome policies such as quotas can be unfair, because a better qualified person may be passed over in favor of the minority required to fill a certain quota. Employers may focus on the quotas, hence diminishing the value diversity offers in and of itself.
Should this be all that's true of the workplace or is there more? What if EEO could be extrapolated to more than just equal treatment of all, to equitable treatment that takes into consideration the diverse needs of the diverse workforce of today? Would this not result in a win-win situation for both the employer and the employee?
The benefits of working in a multicultural, diverse work environment are many. In the modern (and evolving) workplace, there are countless opportunities to learn about other cultures. America is a huge melting pot of cultures and people from all walks of life who need to co-exist and learn from each other because they are different. This learning can help us become more positive, understanding, tolerant, and efficient. The changing demographics of the workforce are an inevitable phenomenon. For the open-minded employee, the transition to a more diverse work environment can be an exciting and enriching new experience.
Equity is about a fair go for all. Diversity is about recognizing and embracing differences. Applied together they provide a holistic approach to management and leadership aimed at creating a work environment that uses and values the talents, abilities and contributions of all people.

No comments:

Post a Comment