Attach assets for smuggling gold, but not for rapes, acid attacks, human traffickers, etc.

Tweet

I may be plain stupid. But when Enforcement Directorate (ED) in India gets right to attach assets of a person smuggling gold, why is it that people who rape or resort to acid attack, human traffic, get away without similar constraints? I have long advocated that assets of rapists, human traffickers, acid attackers, road rage folks, pedophiles be confiscated. What more, a percentage of assets of their family members too be taken away. The reason I say so is, a. As long as the assets remain with such folks, they are in position to encourage wrong elements, resort to hiring people to threaten the victim or her family or her lawyer and remove them from jobs etc., forcing them to withdraw the cases. In India such things are common. b. The family of the criminal supports him often knowing fully well that he wronged. The reason is simple...they need to keep things under wraps to retain the respect of the society for the future of their kids, and also stand to gain from the assets of the accused should the accused be eventually acquitted. c. Availability of assets and or power enables the rapists to force judges to lower punishment. d. Last and the most important factor..........I believe rape is infringement of constitution. Constitution gives rights to each and every individual to be safe and move around the country. When this right is infringed, it is a major crime, so the rights to hold property should be taken away. Given comparison with such serious crime, smuggling of gold seems almost a non crime. Yet assets of the person get attached, disabling the person to use them to cover the tracks. What can you say of lawmakers when they feel the first rape should be punished lightly and only the second rape be eligible for serious punishment? Do they really understand how difficult it is for a person to stand up and fight for her case of rape? How many hide the issue, because they don't want to go through a case forever and risk losing it when the other person is rich. So whoever decides no they are not going to put up with it, may actually be sixth or tenth victim. Does the rape still deserve to be treated as a smaller crime? When a girl gets raped, the first time, the society does not say, oh it is only the first time, let us ignore. She gets punished for lifetime, often with horrific memories, rendering her incapable of enjoying sex in marriage. How then, can lawmakers bring in lenience towards such crimes while letting economic offenses become more worthy of tying down a person?