I think the article misses the whole point of the debate around Sanjay's sentence. So Sanjay Dutt was 34 in 1993. So he took drugs and drank heavily. So he acted like an immature and impetuous fool. So he is hardly a role model for youth. SO what's the point-that he therefore deserves 6 years in jail, and no sympathy?? Sanjay has been conclusively cleared of any links with the blasts. He has been charged with illegally owning a firearm. It is against this that his sentence should be seen. And in this context, one needs to remember another thing- the whole point of punitive law, of punishment, is not revenge. It's to ensure that people who exhibit tendencies to become a menace to society and other human beings, are curbed from inflicting real damage in the future. Since 1993, Sanjay has conducted himself impeccably. He is widely acknowledged as a person with a golden heart. He is the first to help anyone who needs it, and has been associated with various causes. He is clearly no threat to society today, and he wasn't earlier- he had no connection with the blasts, a point that was acknowledged even by the officer who arrested him. As for talking to Chhota Shakeel, you try putting down the phone when a don calls you! Yes, the Bombay blasts were a great tragedy. But in retaliation if we start baying for the blood of anyone who is even remotely connected, irrespective of whether he is guilty or not, we're not better than G.Bush who bombed all of Afghanistan bcos of Osama
