Can thieves not complain against theft?

The recent allegations of corruption against team Anna have got me thinking. The trigger was Shekhar Gupta’s ( Indian Express ) editorial. It made the point that those who are themselves corrupt have no right to spearhead any anti-corruption campaign.
I think Shekhar is mixing issues. One is the accountability of corrupt people for their act of corruption. The other is their right to seek a just system, regardless of their own proclivities.
I do not agree that thieves do not have a right to register a complaint against theft or seek to protect their houses against possible theft. The state can not restrict dispensation of justice only to the untarnished.
In the legal system, an attack on the reputation of the accused is NOT permitted, at least till the point where the law declares the accused to be guilty or not guilty. This provision is specifically to keep the issue of crime and reputation of the accused separate from each other.
During the team Anna campaign at Hissar, people quizzed them as to why they were indirectly campaigning for those who themselves had corruption cases pending against them. The reply was instant and clear. It was because those candidates had publicly backed the Lokpal bill. That means that they were willing to bring in a legislation which, if they continue with their corrupt ways in future too, will trap them viciously. So is the case with team Anna too. They are working to usher in a system which can punish them severely.
If team Anna had been seeking pardon for their alleged corrupt acts only because they are champions of the Jan Lokpal Bill, I would find fault with them. But not in this case. The good that can come out of their campaign can not be sacrificed just to smite them. Also, it would be illegal.

Do not bail out the bums

There is a great post in DNA newspaper of 19 Oct 11. It is ' Yellowstone effect; Let's put our hands together and welcome crisis' by Chandni Burman. Read the full article. Is very instructive.
The article emphasizes - do not fight small fires. They are nature's way of eliminating rubbish and creating stability in systems. When you interfere with this system of natural selection, you may temporarily be able to put off fires but soon the whole system would blow up in your face.
The context is about should we bail out those financial institutions around the world ( mostly in Europe ) that seem to be doing badly, or should we let them die? More than the specifics, the philosophy propounded in the article is a great one.
The example given in the DNA lost goes like this.
In California, they strictly follow a 'zero-tolerance' approach towards forest fires. The moment even a small fire is sighted, someone rushes in to put it out. The result is that for long periods, there are no fire losses. On the contrary, neighbouring Baja California ( Mexico, I think ) has no such policy. So, every now and then, there are fire hazards and losses. But what is interesting is what matters in these two Californias, in the long run. In Baja California, there never is a really bad fire incident. In California, however, there are occasional major catastrophic fires, though few and far between.
The reason is that fires are an indispensable component of the natural dynamics that keep forests in that shape. Suppression of the periodic small fires drives the forests in an unnatural unstable state .... with high density of inflammable material (twigs, bark, leaves etc) strewn around ..... a single lightening strike or cigarette can make it explode in a mass fire.
Avoiding small problems creates greater systemic problems.
So, give disaster a chance. Don't bail out the bums.