5 months' jail for burning these

[Spurman]

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,...,201665,00.html?

 

He gets lost outside Marsiling flats, then sets fire to clothes with cigarette butts

By Amanda Yong

May 12, 2009 Print Ready Email Article

 

ONE wrong turn, and he ended up lost in a block of flats.

 

Derrick Ee, 35, could not find his friend's unit and decided to have a smoke.

 

When he was through, he flicked the cigarette butt onto some clothes hanging outside a flat and caused about $50 worth of damage.

 

Then, 1 1/2 hours later, around 4am on 2 Apr, he did the same thing to clothes outside a neighbouring unit.

 

They ended up catching fire, and when Ee saw them burning, he ran off.

 

This time, he managed to find his friend's flat. The police tracked him down and arrested him a few days later.

 

Ee pleaded guilty to one charge of mischief by fire and was jailed five months. Another similar charge was taken into consideration during sentencing.

 

The court heard that Ee had been living in his friend's flat on the fourth storey of Block 18, Marsiling Lane.

 

He was headed there in the early hours after drinking at a coffee shop.

 

Lost

 

But Ee went up the wrong staircase and when he got to the fourth floor, he could not find the unit.

 

It was after that that he began flicking cigarette butts on to the clothes.

 

The second time he did that, he ended up burning 12 pieces of clothing and four bamboo poles worth $100.

 

When Ee saw them alight, he got frightened and took off.

 

The owner of the clothes woke up to find her clothes burnt. She called the police later that morning.

 

In his mitigation, Ee pleaded for a light sentence.

 

He said: 'I recognise that I did wrong and I seek the forgiveness of Your Honour and of my neighbour... I will not commit the offence again.'

 

For committing mischief by fire, he could have been jailed seven years and fined.

 

 

ERMMMM, 5 months jail for burning.

1 day for murder...

 

WHAT DO U GUYS TINK???

 

 

[Jerms]

i think if he didnt ran off.. he wouldnt have been jailed and he seems to have did it on purpose.

[Drive_carcar]

Sometimes it's interesting to compare crime vs punishments, and easy to try to sensationalise things when there are apparent inconsistencies.

 

My plea is not to get too carried away. Each case that comes before the court has it's very unique set of circumstances, and just as there are felonies where the judge showed lots of compassion, while apparently misdemeanors get's a really harsh penalty. Indeed like every civil society, we can see a trend of being relatively more compassionate on serious crimes, while petty crimes gets punished heavily - many times in the interest of public order.

 

I personally feel that it's not that our legal system is no good, or there's no consistencies. It's just that there are cases which merits compassion, and the judge is independant and courageous enough to bestow mercies when he deems it fit. At the same time, while society progress, the demand for good public order increases, which sometimes call for relatively heavier penalties, which makes comparing with more serious sentences seem scandalous.

 

 

[Chembeng]

Does the court ruled the convicted to pay compensation $ to the parties whose belongings were ruined by the convicted?

 

It's one thing to jail the itchy hand dude, and another to seek reasonable payment to the victims, yah?

[Metblue]

ERMMMM, 5 months jail for burning.

1 day for murder...

 

WHAT DO U GUYS TINK???

Intention is the key word. This guy had the intention and committed the mischief, while although the editor caused an accident which resulted in the death of someone (please do not define it as murder as it is not), she has no intention to kill anyone, although she should be blamed for failure to keep a proper lookout (I myself can't fathom how someone can beat a red light without realizing it). I think Drive_carcar has stated it very well.

 

[Snowbell]

dat's why in criminal law there's actus reus and mens rea.

[Watwheels]

I'm really surprised to see that many ppl here dun see the difference between crimes. They can't differentiate whether there's motive/intent or not behind it all. How can you call it murder when both parties dun even know each other? If they were to know each other and bear a grudge against one another, at least obviously there's a motive in committing the crime.

 

I dunno how the law works here but I had wondered how come the car accident wasn't ruled as involuntary manslaughter where one person have no intent to kill the other but caused death due to negligent. Or there's no such law as involuntary manslaughter here in sg.

[Lv3338]

5mths jail for burning is more serious than killing someone in an accident for only a month...

it seems the justice weighting scale is not functioning...properly liao....

Edited May 12, 2009 by Lv3338

[Redplanet]

Intention is the key word. This guy had the intention and committed the mischief, while although the editor caused an accident which resulted in the death of someone (please do not define it as murder as it is not), she has no intention to kill anyone, although she should be blamed for failure to keep a proper lookout (I myself can't fathom how someone can beat a red light without realizing it). I think Drive_carcar has stated it very well.

 

Ladies do that pretty well. Just saw one at lavender turning rite towards eminent plaza. A full 4 to 5 secs after my side had turned green.

[Kanchelsk]

LTA probably need to installer BIGGER traffic light at junction... cos pretty can't see the normal traffic light on road now..

[Saabest]

This is so bizzare.

[Hiphiphoray]

(I myself can't fathom how someone can beat a red light without realizing it).

 

Ladies do that pretty well. Just saw one at lavender turning rite towards eminent plaza. A full 4 to 5 secs after my side had turned green.

 

Tell me about it.

 

My SIL doesnt recall when she beat any red-light nor see any "flash", when that LTA summon came. Swear that LTA must have made a mistake. haha.

 

But hor....i urge her to go down LTA and pay to see photos, since u r so innocent! Of course she didnt do it rah. Scare malu.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Hiphiphoray

[Scion]

Does the court ruled the convicted to pay compensation $ to the parties whose belongings were ruined by the convicted?

 

It's one thing to jail the itchy hand dude, and another to seek reasonable payment to the victims, yah?

 

dun think so leh... cos here not like US...

 

if want compensation, need to go fight another civil suit...

 

over here, whether u are being punched, raped, or watever, the offender's fines go to the gahmen...

victims just get the sense of justice

[Vroomtattat]

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,...,201665,00.html?

 

He gets lost outside Marsiling flats, then sets fire to clothes with cigarette butts

By Amanda Yong

May 12, 2009 Print Ready Email Article

 

ONE wrong turn, and he ended up lost in a block of flats.

 

Derrick Ee, 35, could not find his friend's unit and decided to have a smoke.

 

When he was through, he flicked the cigarette butt onto some clothes hanging outside a flat and caused about $50 worth of damage.

 

Then, 1 1/2 hours later, around 4am on 2 Apr, he did the same thing to clothes outside a neighbouring unit.

 

They ended up catching fire, and when Ee saw them burning, he ran off.

 

This time, he managed to find his friend's flat. The police tracked him down and arrested him a few days later.

 

Ee pleaded guilty to one charge of mischief by fire and was jailed five months. Another similar charge was taken into consideration during sentencing.

 

The court heard that Ee had been living in his friend's flat on the fourth storey of Block 18, Marsiling Lane.

 

He was headed there in the early hours after drinking at a coffee shop.

 

Lost

 

But Ee went up the wrong staircase and when he got to the fourth floor, he could not find the unit.

 

It was after that that he began flicking cigarette butts on to the clothes.

 

The second time he did that, he ended up burning 12 pieces of clothing and four bamboo poles worth $100.

 

When Ee saw them alight, he got frightened and took off.

 

The owner of the clothes woke up to find her clothes burnt. She called the police later that morning.

 

In his mitigation, Ee pleaded for a light sentence.

 

He said: 'I recognise that I did wrong and I seek the forgiveness of Your Honour and of my neighbour... I will not commit the offence again.'

 

For committing mischief by fire, he could have been jailed seven years and fined.

 

 

ERMMMM, 5 months jail for burning.

1 day for murder...

 

WHAT DO U GUYS TINK???

 

Bro, what murder?? Just did not see red light and bang into someone that's all . . . . chop chop.

 

[Vroomtattat]

Intention is the key word. This guy had the intention and committed the mischief, while although the editor caused an accident which resulted in the death of someone (please do not define it as murder as it is not), she has no intention to kill anyone, although she should be blamed for failure to keep a proper lookout (I myself can't fathom how someone can beat a red light without realizing it). I think Drive_carcar has stated it very well.

 

Why not? Must be using handphone lah . . . . .

[Little_prince]

Law is blind... that's why the babe holding the scale is blind folded...

[Celicar]

Intention is the key word. This guy had the intention and committed the mischief, while although the editor caused an accident which resulted in the death of someone (please do not define it as murder as it is not), she has no intention to kill anyone, although she should be blamed for failure to keep a proper lookout (I myself can't fathom how someone can beat a red light without realizing it). I think Drive_carcar has stated it very well.

 

From the newspaper report, I don't think it is apparent that he had the intent. He pleaded guilty for whatever reason and so the matter didn't go to trial.

 

Looking at intent in isolation is also misleading. The gravity of the issue needs to be considered as well, hence the law looks at the act and intent rather than intent alone. I don't think it can be said, for example, that an intentional pushing of someone to the ground (thus causing some bodily trespass) is more serious than causing death without intent. From that perspective, I'd say if this is compared to the case of causing death by the newspaper editor, albeit without intent, the sentences are off. As the loose saying goes, the law is an Ay.As.As.

[Gearoil]

A smoker is always going to be a smoker...irregardless of whatever ill intent he/she have it's inmmaterial...same goes for a gambler!

 

The habit is bad but they themselves don't want to acknowledge it.

 

The worst thing about this... is the habit goes on influencing other ppl who are taken in by the fad of smoking!

 

I see these youngsters who are dressed in their executive wear smoking in the open ..thinking it's cool!

 

They need to have dry ice placed onto their head for them to realise what is the meaning of ..COOL!