4 1/2 yrs 9 strokes
-
errr.. what's an FT?Originally posted by Marco_Simone:IF a FT did the same thing,what will happen to him? Maybe 1 year prison with lots of mitigating factors thrown in.
You get the idea? -
I think the basic principle in deciding the punishment for an offence is that the punishment must reflect the gravity of the offence committed. Another is that the sentencing has to be consistent across the board, so all criminals who have committed the same offence should receive more or less the same punishment. Of course the mitigating factors then come into play and the judge will then decide on an appropriate punishment for the accused.Originally posted by Profounder:How is public interest not protected by giving a lighter sentence of maybe 2 years to that man?
How is the man who was held hostage scarred for life?
You are speaking from a very hypothetical viewpoint.
Has the spate of bank robberies dissuaded people from going to the banks? ANSWER IS NO.
Singapore is so pre-occupied with order that everything else is lost in the process. This includes room for creativity and human autonomy.
We are very much living in Kafka's world without realising it. And as we write this, the Public Prosecutor could be beaming because he's nailed a case and he'll be up for promotion soon.
In this case, let's ask ourselves why this fella deserves a punishment lighter than another bank robber. Because he was broke? So are most robbers i believe, otherwise why would they wanna rob in the first place. Because he was already 'punished' with a blind eye? But that was merely the result of the cisco guard acting to protect the lives of all the victims in the bank and that was solely the result of this guy's own wrongdoing. Nobody instructed him to hold someone hostage with a toy gun and deceive everyone that it was a real weapon. Because his family can't function without him as the breadwinner? My goodness, then all criminals must be let off lightly right, since their being in jail translates directly to a loss of family income!
If this was the case, then what justification do we have to give a 2 year jail sentence to this guy, when all other bank robbers past, present and in the future are given 4 years?? This is in breach of the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Sentencing is not arbitrary as i mentioned above, a certain consistency has to be ensured for the law to be respected by the people.
Ok, maybe the woman who was held hostage with a gun pointed at her head is a resilient individual. But just picture yourself in her shoes, with a gun pointed at your head (which could be real and loaded for all u know) by some unpredictable bank robber who has been confronted by a armed cisco guard, whereby u never know when he'll pull the trigger and blow your brains out. Surely the emotional and psychological trauma is no small matter right? Don't u want to see that guy punished severely for that?
And if i were to tell u that u'll have a 1% chance of being held at gunpoint the next time u visit the bank, would u still be able to do so with ease? So as i said, a stiff sentence must be meted out to deter any would-be bank robbers out there, so that we can go about doing our business with peace of mind.
All these factors must be considered for a fair sentence to be meted out. We must not base the sentence solely on how pitiful the accused may seem, but also, on how the offence and the sentence will affect society and also whether the suffering of the victims has been adequately avenged. -
Point 1. Do you seriously think everybody is equal before the law?Originally posted by cornyfish2000:I think the basic principle in deciding the punishment for an offence is that the punishment must reflect the gravity of the offence committed. Another is that the sentencing has to be consistent across the board, so all criminals who have committed the same offence should receive more or less the same punishment. Of course the mitigating factors then come into play and the judge will then decide on an appropriate punishment for the accused.
In this case, let's ask ourselves why this fella deserves a punishment lighter than another bank robber. Because he was broke? So are most robbers i believe, otherwise why would they wanna rob in the first place. Because he was already 'punished' with a blind eye? But that was merely the result of the cisco guard acting to protect the lives of all the victims in the bank and that was solely the result of this guy's own wrongdoing. Nobody instructed him to hold someone hostage with a toy gun and deceive everyone that it was a real weapon. Because his family can't function without him as the breadwinner? My goodness, then all criminals must be let off lightly right, since their being in jail translates directly to a loss of family income!
If this was the case, then what justification do we have to give a 2 year jail sentence to this guy, when all other bank robbers past, present and in the future are given 4 years?? This is in breach of the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Sentencing is not arbitrary as i mentioned above, a certain consistency has to be ensured for the law to be respected by the people.
Ok, maybe the woman who was held hostage with a gun pointed at her head is a resilient individual. But just picture yourself in her shoes, with a gun pointed at your head (which could be real and loaded for all u know) by some unpredictable bank robber who has been confronted by a armed cisco guard, whereby u never know when he'll pull the trigger and blow your brains out. Surely the emotional and psychological trauma is no small matter right? Don't u want to see that guy punished severely for that?
And if i were to tell u that u'll have a 1% chance of being held at gunpoint the next time u visit the bank, would u still be able to do so with ease? So as i said, a stiff sentence must be meted out to deter any would-be bank robbers out there, so that we can go about doing our business with peace of mind.
All these factors must be considered for a fair sentence to be meted out. We must not base the sentence solely on how pitiful the accused may seem, but also, on how the offence and the sentence will affect society and also whether the suffering of the victims has been adequately avenged.
Just as the privileged and the so-called "elite" get to have a plane chartered for him to bring a sickly wife back from London, there's no such thing as equal punishment for everybody.
As I say this, a Singaporean friend of mine is stricken with cancer in London and had to be int he queue for proper treatment.
Point 2. Nobody loses respect for the law just because discretionary judgement comes in. In fact, people respect judges who temper their judgement with a dosage of consideration for some mitigating factors instead of going by the book just to "protect the reputation of SIngapore". That has been the case in history and will always be the case because like I said, we are human beings. There are such things as plea bargaining where a criminal gets a lighter sentence in exchange for some quid pro quo he or she provides. Does that make people respect the law less?
Point 3. The psychological trauma of the hostage should only be a tangential factor. Few years back, I was knocked down by a driver who stepped on the accelerator instead of the clutch when he wanted to reverse. I lost my sense of smell and since then have been very wary of standing near cars. Did the driver get a stiffer judgement based on that? NO. He was fined and his driving license wasn't even suspended!
Point 4. Sentencing IS arbitrary. Because every crime has its motives and unique factors. Just take a look at the drug case involving those "high-society" goons. Did they all get the same sentence just for consuming drugs?
Point 5. I am taking issue with the entire mindset of the prosecution that we must protect the reputation of Singapore. That thinking has a fascist element that comes with a technocratic culture Singapore has degenerated into.
And you know why? Because our "elites" are not trained in the philosophical, sociological, and political aspects of the human condition. These bloody scholars are just technocrats and engineers who are on the verge of spiritual bankruptcy. -
Point 1. Do you seriously think everybody is equal before the law?
That's the most fundamental principle governing human justice and should be adhered to wherever possible. Of course whether it is really practised in real life is debatable. Politics frequently come into the picture, and hence we have the concept of 'telephone judges' - judges who change their sentencing after receiving instructions over the phone from the politicians. But that's another debate altogether.
Point 2. Nobody loses respect for the law just because discretionary judgement comes in.
I did not argue against this point did i? Mitigating factors certainly play an important part in determining the sentence, within the limits (max and min permissible sentence) set in the penal code. This is where the 'human face' of justice comes in. But i would like to know what is it u think about this man that deserves a lighter sentence compared to another bank robber.
Point 4. Sentencing IS arbitrary
The judge does not have complete freedom in deciding the sentence. He has to stick to the sentencing limits prescribed in the Act for any particular offence, and he also has to base his sentence on precedent cases whereever possible. Which means if a bank robber in the same situation was sentenced in the past to 4 years imprisonment, he can't sentence this fella to 2 years without some very good mitigating factors. Otherwise would it be fair to the robber who had to endure 2 more years in jail for committing the same offence under the same circumstances? This was what i meant by consistency in sentencing. Without it, it's just like a classroom whereby the teacher has a favourite pet. When everyone else is punished for talking in class, the pet is spared. Would the students henceforth respect the teacher anymore?
Point 3. The psychological trauma of the hostage should only be a tangential factor.
To be precise, the trauma suffered by the victim is an aggravating factor in deciding the sentencing. For example, if one were to maim another person psychologically or physically thereby causing the victim to lose his capacity to function normally in everyday life (lose his job, unable to sleep due to depression and flashbacks for instance), he can be assured of a stiffer punishment compared to another fella who did not cause as much trauma to his victim. This is what i meant when i said that the sentencing has to reflect the gravity of the crime. And this is because the law seeks to avenge the suffering of the victims.
Point 5. I am taking issue with the entire mindset of the prosecution that we must protect the reputation of Singapore.
Isn't that true? As a Singaporean, i wouldn't want to see the image of Singapore tarnished by bank robberies. Is this considered 'fascist' thinking? I certainly hope not. -
Originally posted by Profounder:Point 5. I am taking issue with the entire mindset of the prosecution that we must protect the reputation of Singapore. That thinking has a fascist element that comes with a technocratic culture Singapore has degenerated into.
And you know why? Because our "elites" are not trained in the philosophical, sociological, and political aspects of the human condition. These bloody scholars are just technocrats and engineers who are on the verge of spiritual bankruptcy.
Those technocrats are really like machines at times. They only know precise, ruthless efficiency. -
Agree wif connyfish.
i believe those ppl..criminals..they know and they knew before hand that if they would commit such crime...they would be punished severely, and yet they choosed it. It would be an insult to the law if they dont punish these ppl severely. They know, they choose and therefore, they should bear the consequences.
-
Of course people who commit crimes should be punished. It's the natural law of cause and consequence.
BUT the degree of punishment differs according to circumstances and situations.
So probably "corny" missed the article yesterday where that joker's jail term was slashed to 8 months because according to the preceding judge, the previous judge failed to take into account the set of "mitigating factors" vis-a-vis the act.
Leaving aside the fact that the law is not equal, now, tell me, does that make people want to traffick in drugs? A person who's considering drug trafficking as a career is not going to do so because hey, the judge slashed the jail term of that guy the last time. There will be a million and one factors that will influence his decision.
Similarly, a person is not going to rob a bank just because he thinks back and ponders, hey, remember that poor guy who robbed a bank and got off with a 2-year jail sentence because of mitigating factors?
And "corny", now you know that Cisco guards carry live guns and Cisco guards can be both bobo shooters and get you paralysed, would you want to go rob a bank? And by the way, yes, the banks have increased their vigilance. I'm not sure about those finance companies but like I sai, cause and consequence. If these financial institutions are not willing to beef up security in the name of cost-cutting which seems to be a very Singaporean mantra, they will pay for their stupidity!
And yes, your thinking is fascist. Like a certain Adolf Eichmann perpetuating the policy of a machinist state bent on protecting its purity and Aryan pedigree. Or maybe a certain fascist state where "the train always runs on time".
Singapore risks becoming or is already a machinist state if there are more people who are preoccupied with protecting this reputation or that reputation.
A person who can write long arguments like yourself would probably have travelled overseas. Is Amsterdam a lesser city because of its tolerance towards prostitutes? Is Switzerland a lesser oasis in the eyes of the world because of its tolerance towards drug users?
The great city of Sydney - one of the best places to live according to World Habitat - has its cobblestone pavements marked with countless gum stains. The people are probably weary of having to step on another piece of gum but are they bothered by the stains? No they are not. Because the key to being a great city lies not in preoccupation with this or that certain orderliness. The mark of a great city is spontaneity and a ceratin chaos that allow the individual to contribute his ideas freely.
Even in a state aiming for perfection (which I doubt can be achieved), there is room for compassion. -
The harsh penalties are meant 2 act as a way 2 prevent people from committing crimes. If there is not such deterrants, then people would think, "Might as well go rob bank, kill people, raple women, since only sit a few years in Changi'Originally posted by Prince Cumming:That poor guy didnt even get a single cent, got shot & is now blind... At least he didnt cheat or steal,got guts to rob... i sympathise with him
Have came across similar cases where robbers in Taiwan & Hong Kong injure hostages & even the police and only get 8-10 yrs..
No wonder S'pore can maintain low crime rates... if they impose heavier penalty indiscriminately, we can even sleep with our doors unlocked
But are such harsh penalities all justified?
I would rather have all these harsh penalties in place then 2 have less stiffer ones, and worry at night if i would be crime's next target -
Then can you explain why Dinesh Singh Bhatia can get his sentence redeuced? Don't come and tell me it all bils down to his "white horse" status in Singapore society.Originally posted by nanren4ever:The harsh penalties are meant 2 act as a way 2 prevent people from committing crimes. If there is not such deterrants, then people would think, "Might as well go rob bank, kill people, raple women, since only sit a few years in Changi'
I would rather have all these harsh penalties in place then 2 have less stiffer ones, and worry at night if i would be crime's next target
-
in this case i honestly believe the sentence is not harsh. the man did try to rob a bank and i think the sentence did take into account his mitigating circumstances. and also i heard that u can get time off the sentence for good behaviour.
but the judical in singapore is not fair and equal one, this much i can tell just form reading the state propaganda (straits times) eg
1. dunking incident
2. maids killing ppl
3. high profile drugs bust
4. some taxi company chairman only kenna fine for road rage
the elite and FT all get better deal one. but the farmers kenna maximum one. -
Hmmm.. so by extension of your line of argument, we might as well have a flat sentence (say 2 years imprisonment) for all crimes, regardless of severity? Since there are a million and one factors to influence his decision on whether or not to commit the crime.. so as long as there is a punishment for the crime it is good enough a deterrent for would-be offenders. In that case, do u think a 2 year jail term is deterrant enough for a dead-broke heroin trafficker who is likely to rise from a bankrupt to a millionaire overnight and with relatively so little to lose even if caught? Don't u think a heavier punishment (like the mandatory death sentence) would serve a greater deterrent effect?Originally posted by Profounder:Of course people who commit crimes should be punished. It's the natural law of cause and consequence.
BUT the degree of punishment differs according to circumstances and situations.
So probably "corny" missed the article yesterday where that joker's jail term was slashed to 8 months because according to the preceding judge, the previous judge failed to take into account the set of "mitigating factors" vis-a-vis the act.
Leaving aside the fact that the law is not equal, now, tell me, does that make people want to traffick in drugs? A person who's considering drug trafficking as a career is not going to do so because hey, the judge slashed the jail term of that guy the last time. There will be a million and one factors that will influence his decision.
Similarly, a person is not going to rob a bank just because he thinks back and ponders, hey, remember that poor guy who robbed a bank and got off with a 2-year jail sentence because of mitigating factors?
And "corny", now you know that Cisco guards carry live guns and Cisco guards can be both bobo shooters and get you paralysed, would you want to go rob a bank? And by the way, yes, the banks have increased their vigilance. I'm not sure about those finance companies but like I sai, cause and consequence. If these financial institutions are not willing to beef up security in the name of cost-cutting which seems to be a very Singaporean mantra, they will pay for their stupidity!
And yes, your thinking is fascist. Like a certain Adolf Eichmann perpetuating the policy of a machinist state bent on protecting its purity and Aryan pedigree. Or maybe a certain fascist state where "the train always runs on time".
Singapore risks becoming or is already a machinist state if there are more people who are preoccupied with protecting this reputation or that reputation. Even in a state aiming for perfection (which I doubt can be achieved), there is room for compassion.
As i said, the purpose of punishment as far as the law is concerned is threefold.. one of them is to avenge for the suffering of the victim, the other is to act as a deterrant while the third is to ensure that criminals who have committed the same offence before under the same circumstances have not been excessively punished compared to this guy. Even if your argument that a light sentence will have the same deterrent effect as a heavy sentence is true, we still have to consider the first and third aims of judicial punishment. I think mitigating factors (the compassion part) are really a secondary consideration lor. We have to consider the interests of the victim and the society as well.
And as for u saying that if banks are not willing to beef up their security, they will pay for their stupidity.. well, i have to agree that it's true, just like how the girls who refuse to dress modestly will pay for their sexy dressing by getting themselves raped. But this does not affect the duty of the law in any way, which is to punish the wrongdoer and to address the grievances of the victims! We still have to jail and cane the rapist who got tempted by the sexy dressing of his victim! Or are we going to spare the caning because the rape "was the girl's fault"?
Anyway, i'm no fascist lah. I do not agree with certain aspects of our political system, am not impressed by certain political practices and neither am i a PAP stooge or PAP member wannabe. Nevertheless, i am proud to be a Singaporean as i am born here and have lived here all my life. Naturally, I would like to see Singapore progress as a self-sufficient city state which the world will come to respect as a safe haven for investment and tourism. I certainly do not see anything wrong with this mindset.
-
Precisely! And if we can successfully deter crime by having these harsh punishments, aren't we helping the would-be criminals as well? Then instead of arguing that his 4 year jail sentence is too harsh, he won't even have to serve a day in prison! And at the same time, we can all sleep with ease.Originally posted by nanren4ever:The harsh penalties are meant 2 act as a way 2 prevent people from committing crimes. If there is not such deterrants, then people would think, "Might as well go rob bank, kill people, raple women, since only sit a few years in Changi'
I would rather have all these harsh penalties in place then 2 have less stiffer ones, and worry at night if i would be crime's next target