Punishment too light?

[HARDGAYHOOOO]

So sorry, no mention of revoke of driving licence, just 12 months ban. Can drive again thereafter

 

True , they should have his license KANTONG!!!! Ban him from retaking license for at least 2 to 3 years. :angry:

[Rockaphonics]

This is just an accident, the accused obviously has no intention to cause harm. The court takes this into account. Furthermore the taxi has a part in this.

Even though it is tragic that a life has lost, we should look from the POV of the accused.

Imagine how he felt for the 2 years before trial. I think the trauma is great punishment enough.

[Vid]

This is just an accident, the accused obviously has no intention to cause harm. The court takes this into account. Furthermore the taxi has a part in this.

Even though it is tragic that a life has lost, we should look from the POV of the accused.

Imagine how he felt for the 2 years before trial. I think the trauma is great punishment enough.

 

What part has the taxi in it other than being crash into?

[XALmoN]

What part has the taxi in it other than being crash into?

 

not paying attention.

 

if rear ended, is one thing, but getting sideswiped as i mentioned before, means you need to open your eyes bigger, which in this case, onus is on the taxi driver, could have been avoidable if taxi driver was more alert.

 

well, still, the lorry driver is mostly at fault but well, defensive driving is very impt.

[Good-Carbuyer]

This is just an accident, the accused obviously has no intention to cause harm. The court takes this into account. Furthermore the taxi has a part in this.

Even though it is tragic that a life has lost, we should look from the POV of the accused.

Imagine how he felt for the 2 years before trial. I think the trauma is great punishment enough.

Too idealistic? Not all make good thereafter. Some/many blame it on bad luck (never learn from mistake)

[Good-Carbuyer]

True , they should have his license KANTONG!!!! Ban him from retaking license for at least 2 to 3 years. :angry:

I was more in favour of driving re-training/re-test with that lorry for that driver, besides the penalty sentenced by the court

[Greatbirdlegend]

not paying attention.

 

if rear ended, is one thing, but getting sideswiped as i mentioned before, means you need to open your eyes bigger, which in this case, onus is on the taxi driver, could have been avoidable if taxi driver was more alert.

 

well, still, the lorry driver is mostly at fault but well, defensive driving is very impt.

 

You are driving along and the vehicle decides to cross double white lines to side swipe your car.

And it's your onus to avoid this???

Sorry i'm not that good a defensive driver if that's the case.

[Timex1441]

A lot has been said about this case. Just wish to add my 2-cents worth on the general lack of enforcement by TP.

When i lived in a small american city for several years, the ratio of policemen to drivers was much higher than in S'pore. (they don't have specially-delegated "traffic" police; the policemen take up both traffic and non-traffic duties)

And you can imagine how much fear the american policeman can strike in a driver (he's typically tall, muscular, fierce-looking, and definitely ready to use his gun if necessary).

They were positioned at many strategic places, as well as frequently patrolling the roads, to catch violations such as failure to stop completely at STOP sign, speeding, illegal turning, failure to give way to ambulances, illegal overtaking, etc. and of course, parking offences.

I'm sure if s'pore does the same, and inculcate a self-imposed fear in the minds of drivers (because you never know when you'll get caught), many people will wake up their bloody idea and drive safely. But, we all know tat the govt will say it's too costly and hard to recruit enough policemen etc etc.

*sigh*

[Greatbirdlegend]

What part has the taxi in it other than being crash into?

 

Guess it's a taxi and the taxi driver must be at fault for driving at all?

I'm amazed at some of the comments here about how really really bad the lorry driver must be feeling or what guilt he must have for these 2 years.

Forgive me for being cynical about the great show of magnanimity here.

I have to ask if you would still say the same thing if this woman is your mother, or your sister or your cousin or your wife etc.

The family of the victim are only the real people that will WITHOUT ANY DOUBT live with this nightmare for the rest of their lives.

The lorry driver as far as anyone knows could be out there endangering more lives, quite possibly you and your love ones.

[TandemAssassin]

keyword is intent.

 

was it on purpose?

was it a lapse in judgment?

or just plain inexperience?

 

go back a couple of years, the MX5 guy was jailed for his rash act during the test drive.

 

correct. it is the intention behind an act that determines the punishment.

 

the mx5 guy was rash. this guy was negligent. the newspaper pointed out things like he was a new driver etc didn't it? these are facts that show that it was more likely that he was negligent.

 

at the end of the day, we need proof beyond reasonable doubt. can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting rashly?

 

strange that the people here cannot see how strict liability laws can turn around to bite them in a**? remember the strict liability laws on harboring illegals? where no matter whether you intended, were negligent or didn't know, so long as you rent out to an illegal you go to jail? remember the senior citizen that got sent to jail?

 

it is unjust to the accused persons if they are sentenced and convicted without any blameworthy mental element.

 

 

 

[TandemAssassin]

Let me emphasize again that we are not talking about hanging anyone here.

You seems to gravitate towards something that nobody is advocating here - other than yourself.

Whether you term this as minor transgression or not has no bearing on this case.

The law is written clearly that the maximum punishment is amounting to jail term.

Since an innocent life is lost here is anyone 'crying for his blood' by asking that the law be applied to the severity of this case?

Unless you are so kind as to explain the the family of the innocent dead that this case is not severe enough to put this punishment on?

Again reminding you that this is written in the law.

You seems to be mistaking my call for justice and deterrence sentence to be baying for blood mentality.

I find that amusing.

Your argument is that since people continue to do these minor transgressions then we should just forget about doing anything about it?

Then why bother having any laws at all?

 

The law is not just the written law in SG.

 

The law also has it that for an act of negligence under s.304A of the Penal Code, the general appropriate sentence to impose a fine. You want the case name? I will go dig for it. The Court is equally bound by the case law/precedents.

 

So are you are saying that the Court should look at the facts, even though they think it is negligence; still make a finding that it was a rash act? So that they can justify imposing imprisonment?

 

I am also reminding you that this is the law as it stands in Singapore today. If we are to adopt your views, then like you said, why bother having laws at all?

[Greatbirdlegend]

correct. it is the intention behind an act that determines the punishment.

 

the mx5 guy was rash. this guy was negligent. the newspaper pointed out things like he was a new driver etc didn't it? these are facts that show that it was more likely that he was negligent.

 

at the end of the day, we need proof beyond reasonable doubt. can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting rashly?

 

strange that the people here cannot see how strict liability laws can turn around to bite them in a**? remember the strict liability laws on harboring illegals? where no matter whether you intended, were negligent or didn't know, so long as you rent out to an illegal you go to jail? remember the senior citizen that got sent to jail?

 

it is unjust to the accused persons if they are sentenced and convicted without any blameworthy mental element.

 

Except in this case the lorry driver was blameworthy?

He drove across 2 double white lines and killed someone?

 

I also find your statement that people cannot see how strict liability laws cannot turn around and apply equally to them.

Basically you are saying just because i could be caught doing the same thing then it's better we don't have strict laws?

We shouldn't be fining people for littering because I could be caught littering later?

Personally i don't have a issue with the laws being applied to me if I broke it.

[Greatbirdlegend]

The law is not just the written law in SG.

 

The law also has it that for an act of negligence under s.304A of the Penal Code, the general appropriate sentence to impose a fine. You want the case name? I will go dig for it. The Court is equally bound by the case law/precedents.

 

So are you are saying that the Court should look at the facts, even though they think it is negligence; still make a finding that it was a rash act? So that they can justify imposing imprisonment?

 

I am also reminding you that this is the law as it stands in Singapore today. If we are to adopt your views, then like you said, why bother having laws at all?

 

Both offences he was convicted of carry the jail terms.

So I'm not exactly sure why you are talking about justifying the jail terms?

It's written in the laws.

Oh btw - he pleaded guilty.

 

"Lim could have been jailed for up to two years and/or fined for causing death by doing a a negligent act. The other offence is punishable with up to six months and/or a fine of up to $2,500. "

[Jman888]

Both offences he was convicted of carry the jail terms.

So I'm not exactly sure why you are talking about justifying the jail terms?

It's written in the laws.

Oh btw - he pleaded guilty.

 

"Lim could have been jailed for up to two years and/or fined for causing death by doing a a negligent act. The other offence is punishable with up to six months and/or a fine of up to $2,500. "

 

perhaps someone can lookup the case and find the verdict on what the judge have said, why a fine and not jail? there must be a reason.

[Greatbirdlegend]

Both offences he was convicted of carry the jail terms.

So I'm not exactly sure why you are talking about justifying the jail terms?

It's written in the laws.

Oh btw - he pleaded guilty.

 

"Lim could have been jailed for up to two years and/or fined for causing death by doing a a negligent act. The other offence is punishable with up to six months and/or a fine of up to $2,500. "

 

And here...why don't i do it for you?

 

Causing death by rash or negligent act.

304A. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished

[Lammy84]

Let me emphasize again that we are not talking about hanging anyone here.

You seems to gravitate towards something that nobody is advocating here - other than yourself.

Whether you term this as minor transgression or not has no bearing on this case.

The law is written clearly that the maximum punishment is amounting to jail term.

Since an innocent life is lost here is anyone 'crying for his blood' by asking that the law be applied to the severity of this case?

Unless you are so kind as to explain the the family of the innocent dead that this case is not severe enough to put this punishment on?

Again reminding you that this is written in the law.

You seems to be mistaking my call for justice and deterrence sentence to be baying for blood mentality.

I find that amusing.

Your argument is that since people continue to do these minor transgressions then we should just forget about doing anything about it?

Then why bother having any laws at all?

 

Again, you have chosen selective reading as your best defence. I am not saying everyone is asking for him to be hanged. I said "Even if he were to be hung, it would not stop others from crossing double white lines or not stopping at stop lines etc."

 

Why? Because these traffic offences are deemed as just MINOR, unlike speeding or cutting in and out of traffic. What is justice? Justice is only served when people have gotten the punishment YOU feel HE deserves? He received his judgement and punishment, Justice is already met in the eyes of the law. More ever, Justice comes in more forms than just a driving ban or jail sentence. You idea of Justice is so shallow. EVEN HANGING HIM WILL NOT DETER others from committing these offences day in day out, much less a jail sentence. WHY? Because the TP has given the public the wrong msg all these while.

 

You only see s--t like "Speeding Kills", have you ever seen a campaign or ad that emphasises that traffic offences of any kind has the chance to cause a catastrophe? NO, they took the easy way out and played the blame game on the 1 offence that has the most public negativity even before the campaign, speeding.

 

You are just looking at this 1 person, to punish him harshly as a deterrence to HIM. What should have been done would have been to see what are the improvements can be done to our existing road system to prevent as such so that such cases can be prevented from happening to others in future.

[Happily1986]

A lot has been said about this case. Just wish to add my 2-cents worth on the general lack of enforcement by TP.

When i lived in a small american city for several years, the ratio of policemen to drivers was much higher than in S'pore. (they don't have specially-delegated "traffic" police; the policemen take up both traffic and non-traffic duties)

And you can imagine how much fear the american policeman can strike in a driver (he's typically tall, muscular, fierce-looking, and definitely ready to use his gun if necessary).

They were positioned at many strategic places, as well as frequently patrolling the roads, to catch violations such as failure to stop completely at STOP sign, speeding, illegal turning, failure to give way to ambulances, illegal overtaking, etc. and of course, parking offences.

I'm sure if s'pore does the same, and inculcate a self-imposed fear in the minds of drivers (because you never know when you'll get caught), many people will wake up their bloody idea and drive safely. But, we all know tat the govt will say it's too costly and hard to recruit enough policemen etc etc.

*sigh*

 

Lol, i can picture Eugene Tackleberry from the POlice Academy series.

 

ET on loudhailer: This is the police. Slow down right now!

Driver bochup*

ET takes out super long magnum *bang bang

[Greatbirdlegend]

Again, you have chosen selective reading as your best defence. I am not saying everyone is asking for him to be hanged. I said "Even if he were to be hung, it would not stop others from crossing double white lines or not stopping at stop lines etc."

 

Why? Because these traffic offences are deemed as just MINOR, unlike speeding or cutting in and out of traffic. What is justice? Justice is only served when people have gotten the punishment YOU feel HE deserves? He received his judgement and punishment, Justice is already met in the eyes of the law. More ever, Justice comes in more forms than just a driving ban or jail sentence. You idea of Justice is so shallow. EVEN HANGING HIM WILL NOT DETER others from committing these offences day in day out, much less a jail sentence. WHY? Because the TP has given the public the wrong msg all these while.

 

You only see s--t like "Speeding Kills", have you ever seen a campaign or ad that emphasises that traffic offences of any kind has the chance to cause a catastrophe? NO, they took the easy way out and played the blame game on the 1 offence that has the most public negativity even before the campaign, speeding.

 

You are just looking at this 1 person, to punish him harshly as a deterrence to HIM. What should have been done would have been to see what are the improvements can be done to our existing road system to prevent as such so that such cases can be prevented from happening to others in future.

 

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of laws as deterrence.

Laws are not written for what you think it should do - to make everything perfect.

Deterrence - please understand the purpose.

Not total elimination.

Just because we cannot eliminate does not mean we cannot minimize.

It's like saying worksite deaths happens no matter how much workplace safetly laws we have so why bother punishing companies for not following since accidents happen.

 

You cannot set up any useful improvement without having enforcement.

For example your idea of setting up yellow plastic sticks between lines.

What happens when another lorry crashes through those and kill someone else?

Build a concrete wall between lines?