Penalties for crime must reflect public opinion: Shanmugam

[Yewheng]

Mr.YEWHENG, THE J's are human too, the questions are...

Bending or not ?

If not ? There are no public grievance !!

Ya, difficult question, still in long run I feel public opinion should not be the factor that affects judge decisions on the case. As this can open up many cans of worms.

 

Understand judge are human too, so that's why there is appeal channel that they can appeal right?

 

Now comes the tricky part where appeal all the way to the highest can go already and still feel it's unfair or something that makes no sense. Then this is where they may need to relook on the the set of law and see how can it be tweaked to make it fairer but definitely not public opinion to reflect on penalties.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Yewheng

[2BDriver]

Ya, difficult question, still in long run I feel public opinion should not be the factor that affects judge decisions on the case. As this can open up many cans of words.

 

Understand judge are human too, so that's why there is appeal channel that they can appeal right?

 

Now comes the tricky part where appeal all the way to the highest can go already and still feel it's unfair or something that makes no sense. Then this is where they may need to relook on the the set of law and see how can it be tweaked to make it fairer but definitely not public opinion to reflect on penalties.

As with regard CHC case, what ever mentioned now is too late.

A constitutional bill need time for law makers to debating and arrive consensus to vote in Parliament for it to pass as law.

That's why I had mentioned 马 后 豹, when I first read the ministar announced.

[Yewheng]

As with regard CHC case, what ever mentioned now is too late.

A constitutional bill need time for law makers to debating and arrive consensus to vote in Parliament for it to pass as law.

That's why I had mentioned 马 后 豹, when I first read the ministar announced.

Actually a better way is to proceed with the debate on the constitution bills and when it is passed as law then revisit to the CHC case. Yes by then it maybe 6 months down the road, but when the case is revisit / reopened, then go for higher sentence also not too late what. Like that public opinion for judge to decide on the sentence will not be touched.. Edited April 27, 2017 by Yewheng

[2BDriver]

Actually a better way is to proceed with the debate on the constitution bills and when it is passed as law then revisit to the CHC case. Yes by then it maybe 6 months down the road, but when the case is revisit / reopened, then go for higher sentence also not too late what. Like that public opinion for judge to decide on the sentence still not touched what..

I am saddened to witnessed the light sentence, mind you I am not bias over religion beliefs but the monetary abused in it's actual cause is too huge and it went directly into personal expenditures.

I am a company director and would see it as an absolute absurd and nonsense in company internal book keeping and auditing flaws in first hand.

Edited April 27, 2017 by 2BDriver

[Yewheng]

I am saddened to witnessed the light sentence, mind you I am not bias over religion beliefs but the monetary abused in it's actual cause is too huge and it went directly into personal expenditures.

I am company director and would see it as an absolute absurd in company internal book keeping and auditing flaws in first hand.

Yes me too, but what I feel, as the matter of ensuring that law do not go into politics. It is better to go by the long process way and when the bill is passed, then revisit or reopened the case again and then up the sentence.

 

Like this justice still served, just that it took a bit longer time to serve that justice and at the same time politics is not touch with regard to the law is concern.

[Wt_know]

si mi tai ji??? lol

court of appeal still no sound no air ar

Edited April 27, 2017 by Wt_know

[2BDriver]

Yes me too, but what I feel, as the matter of ensuring that law do not go into politics. It is better to go by the long process way and when the bill is passed, then revisit or reopened the case again and then up the sentence.

 

Like this justice still served, just that it took a bit longer time to serve that justice and at the same time politics is not touch with regard to the law is concern.

Just last week, Chinese paper talking about home detention for the great six's.

I almost fainted with these nonsense reported going around with these group who breached fundamental trust in 50 million's church building funds.

I am lost and confuse with our current leader's guidance.

si mi tai ji??? lol

court of appeal still no sound no air ar

Siao liao lah....

Ler ah buay koon ???

[Jungus]

What 'constitutional law' you guys talking about?

 

Seems the Engrish becoming so powderful I no longer can follow...

 

I'm outta here...

[Chongster]

i look at what Shanmugam is saying again, is he saying the punishments provided for in the law need to reflect the public opinion of the seriousness of the offence, or is he saying the sentencing in each case need to reflect public opinion?

 

He is a lawyer and seem to have chosen his words carefully to mean the former, which i agree.  

[Mason016]

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/shanmugam-raps-critics-remarks-penalties-read-and-understand-them-first

 

 

Woot!  RI boy versus HC boy...

 

 

 

 

[Jman888]

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/shanmugam-raps-critics-remarks-penalties-read-and-understand-them-first

 

 

Woot! RI boy versus HC boy...

 

 

that Associate Dean no big deal lah

[Watwheels]

si mi tai ji??? lol

court of appeal still no sound no air ar

 

So many pages of court document to go thru. It will take forever. Well, ppl are forgetful. By the time they are done, ppl moved on.

 

All the while it has been they say 1 nobody will dare say 2. Wonder why go thru so much trouble now? Some kinda election coming, is it?

Even if true the candidate's race is already been fixed. So what gives?

[Wt_know]

public opinion is important ... of course it's important

if watch hk movie ... the pledge is always to protect the people safety, property, justice, fairness, rights, etc

law is enacted taking consideration of all that

even Brexit need to do a poll to make decision

ah gong is not stupid la ... in fact uniquely spore ah gong made decision most of the time not just based on public opinion ... otherwise there wont be 30% water tax hike

Edited April 28, 2017 by Wt_know

[2BDriver]

public opinion is important ... of course it's important

if watch hk movie ... the pledge is always to protect the people safety, property, justice, fairness, rights, etc

law is enacted taking consideration of all that

even Brexit need to do a poll to make decision

ah gong is not stupid la ... in fact uniquely spore ah gong made decision most of the time not just based on public opinion ... otherwise there wont be 30% water tax hike

They got majority mandate to govern, drafts legislation passing it down as rule by law in constructing jurisdiction major pillars.

The public outcries are concerns of anyone up there still sleeping on the Auto Pilot Control Systems, afraid they wouldn't knowing it had some sort of double standards rulings.

To express public opinions should or shouldn't affect jurisdiction order's is another weird explanation sounds similarly to Mr.WKS announcement with the fugitive ?

Edited April 28, 2017 by 2BDriver

[SuPerBoRed]

If you think public opinions can be wrong due to incomplete facts... and yet you say public opinion is impt in law making..  so.. 

 

what are you going to do?

 

disallow all half-truths?

or start revealing everything about a case?

or take back your lip service statement? 

 

one out of the three... 

[StefanK]

Jury system might not be possible or even a good thing because in Singapore we are so small and everyone so connected over the Internet. It is close to impossible to have a jury which is untainted or who can be neutral even before the case starts. In places like USA there is at least the option of holding the trial in another place.

 

For the "normal cases" yea it is good but for those sensational ones like the chc one, honestly speaking, how many will focus on evidence of kh guilt while ignoring evidence of his innocence and vice versa instead of strictly looking at the arguments and make a decision based in strictly on what is presented in court and not based on any preconceived notions?

 

So jury system also has its flaws. May have been useful before the days of Internet but now the social media can rile up people even before the case goes the hero court so any potential juror, esp in a place as small as Singapore, is probably already having preconceived notions even before the first day of trial.

 

And this my friend, is the reason why our dear Minister Shanmugam should not take a populists approach to our judiciary system.

If even our own law minister does not feel the statutes and laws in place are sufficient, how can he transmit that confidence to the citizens?

[Jellandross]

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/shanmugam-raps-critics-remarks-penalties-read-and-understand-them-first

 

 

Woot! RI boy versus HC boy...

 

 

This reminds me of the eternal debate on gay sex. To poke or not to poke, that is the question.

 

“For example, if an overwhelming majority of the public will not consider some conduct to be criminal, or will consider some conduct to be acceptable, then that is relevant, when deciding whether to put forward a law which criminalises such conduct,” said Mr Shanmugam.

[Yewheng]

This reminds me of the eternal debate on gay sex. To poke or not to poke, that is the question.

 

“For example, if an overwhelming majority of the public will not consider some conduct to be criminal, or will consider some conduct to be acceptable, then that is relevant, when deciding whether to put forward a law which criminalises such conduct,” said Mr Shanmugam.

The problem with public opinion is that often times public may not know the full story, or they have no time to follow through the whole thing which can be very time consuming and just based on whatever is reported and jump to conclusion. We must also be fair to the other party even if there is a very strong opinion that public feel he should be punished heavily for example. Plus this public opinion thing really open up can of worms and will affect judge to decide on fair sentence.

 

Like for example, based on facts, the judge may want to sentence this guy to jail for 6months for example. But with public outcry and just cannot sentence this guy 6months already and have to sentence a lot higher. So which means to say facts is not that important factor anymore. Like that it will not be fair the the other party. This will also led to more of political point of view when giving sentence as judge will need to look at public sentiment. Not good.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Yewheng