Woe are the Poor, and Accused.. Where's the Justice?
-
Contrary to what you might be expecting, my answer would be 'yes'. To both questions.Originally posted by Mid9Sun:Can honesty say that u have faith in SAF in defending the country??? If you answer is no. Then would you believe SPF would be any different?? -
Your sentence absolutely smacks of total ignorance. Do you actually know what happens when a person has been arrested?Originally posted by spinsugar:Singapore. Guilty until proven innocent
When a person is arrested and subsequently prosecuted, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that there is reason to believe that the person is guilty as charged. If not, the case would be thrown out and the accused person, accquited.
Why is the onus on the prosecution? Simple. If the prosecution cannot prove that there is indeed reason to believe that the person is guilty, then the accused person has nothing to defend himself against. If there are no charges to defend against, then why arrest and prosecute him at all?
If both elements are statisfied, then we have a trial.
So the prosecution has to prove that there is reason to believe that the person did what he has been accused of doing. And the accused person would then seek to defend himself (using a defence counsel or otherwise) against the said charges.
So, the accused people are indeed innocent until proven to be guilty.
Kindly get your facts right before you shoot your mouth off. -
Care to explain why our acquittal rate is so low?Originally posted by Tiggerific:Your sentence absolutely smacks of total ignorance. Do you actually know what happens when a person has been arrested?
When a person is arrested and subsequently prosecuted, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that there is reason to believe that the person is guilty as charged. If not, the case would be thrown out and the accused person, accquited.
Why is the onus on the prosecution? Simple. If the prosecution cannot prove that there is indeed reason to believe that the person is guilty, then the accused person has nothing to defend himself against. If there are no charges to defend against, then why arrest and prosecute him at all?
If both elements are statisfied, then we have a trial.
So the prosecution has to prove that there is reason to believe that the person did what he has been accused of doing. And the accused person would then seek to defend himself (using a defence counsel or otherwise) against the said charges.
So, the accused people are indeed innocent until proven to be guilty.
Kindly get your facts right before you shoot your mouth off.
If Vidya SHanker had done what he did in London, I doubt it would have even gone to trial. -
You should be the one to get your facts right.Originally posted by Tiggerific:Kindly get your facts right before you shoot your mouth off.
-
What Tiggerific said is indeed part of the legal system of Singapore. Which part of his/her facts is incorrect?Originally posted by SnowFlag:You should be the one to get your facts right. -
WTH...i beginning to have doubts with the clashes of employment together with the law.
-
Maybe, to prove that our Legal System works the way someone said it would, one should try to run afoul the law, and see how 'innocently' they treat you before granting you Bail.
Our Law and legal system is "unique" within our borders only.
And very well tailored by and for our almighty gov. -
Unfortunately the same is relevant the other way round too.Originally posted by mancha:In the justice system, what actually is, is not the truth, but what that can be proven.
That is when an assertion is proven, it is considered the truth, even when it is actually not.
You may have a piece of evidence which plainly points its finger to the truth of the matter. However if your evidence was improperly obtained, that evidence may not be admissible in court and thereafter you will be unable to prove your assertion. -
In Singapore, we are guilty unless proven.Originally posted by JLennon:What Tiggerific said is indeed part of the legal system of Singapore. Which part of his/her facts is incorrect? -
Read what the TS post.
Read this post.
http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2006/imp-269.htm
On August 4 last year , when Jagatheesan Krishnasamy met Gunaprakash N Thuraisamy to collect on a loan, little did he know that Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers were watching and waiting to bust Gunaprakash the moment he delivered ecstasy pills to an undercover CNB officer, who had arranged a trap purchase. Following his arrest, Gunaprakash claimed that Jagatheesan had supplied the drugs. Seemingly on the strength of Gunaprakash's word alone, Jagatheesan was arrested -- even though he was not the target of the CNB operation and was never seen with any drugs. So began Jagatheesan's nightmare, which culminated in his being convicted and sentenced to five years' jail and 10 strokes of the cane for drug trafficking.
On May 26 this year, Jagatheesan's ordeal finally ended when the appeal court quashed his conviction. He was a free man -- but not before having served months of imprisonment and being saddled with debts of tens of thousands of dollars for legal costs. Should Jagatheesan be left to bear the crushing burden of debt from legal costs? Although the High Court, after hearing appeals from the Subordinate Courts, has the power to order the prosecution to pay costs to a person who is acquitted, that power is practically never exercised. The situation is worse in the trial court. The law only allows recovery of costs by a person acquitted after a High Court or District Court trial if the prosecution was "frivolous and vexatious", making the right to costs practically illusory. The provisions relating to Magistrate's Court cases are even more archaic. The maximum amount that can be recovered upon acquittal is $50.
It is anomalous that the Singapore courts routinely award costs to successful defendants in civil cases, but never to successful defendants in criminal cases. On the other hand, the law does not place any constraints on the power of the courts to award costs to the prosecution on conviction -- no $50 limit or requirement that the defence was "frivolous and vexatious", for example. In some cases, the courts have awarded costs of tens of thousands of dollars to the prosecution upon conviction of the accused person.
"If the prosecution can get costs on conviction then even more so it is only right that an acquitted person should be entitled to costs. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said leading criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan, who acted for Jagatheesan.
The position in Singapore contrasts sharply with that in England. The law in England states that if a person is acquitted, the court should normally make an order of costs in his/her favour unless there are positive reasons for not doing so. It would further the cause of criminal justice in Singapore if this approach were adopted here. Currently, many who are charged are reluctant to spend on legal costs to defend themselves when even a win means losing their savings. The outcome of a trial may be uncertain, but that they have to pay their lawyers is for sure. So, knowing that they have no prospect of recovering their legal costs may very well cause innocent persons to plead guilty.
A person should not have to choose between a wrongful conviction and personal bankruptcy. There is no cogent reason why a person found innocent should have to bear the costs of his defence. The risk that a person can be wrongly charged cannot be altogether eliminated. The question is who should bear that risk. Surely, it is more apt for the state to do so. Since more than 95 per cent of cases end up in convictions, it is only in a handful of case that the state would have to bear such costs. Allowing an acquitted person costs would also signal to the prosecution that putting an innocent person through a trial has cost consequences. This is bound to serve as a healthy check on the prosecution.
It is high time that the law in Singapore on costs in criminal cases was reviewed. Defence lawyers can take the lead by making more eloquent and forceful applications to the court when appropriate. But, ultimately, legislative changes are called for to make the criminal process more fair to serve us all. After all, the presumption of innocence probably sounds like a hollow promise to a person who walks out of a courtroom with the pyrrhic victory of an acquittal earned at the cost of a mountain of debt and without any compensation for the ordeal he/she has been through.
The writer is a lawyer. This is his personal comment. -
Accused... innocent until proven guilty. In Singapore? Maybe so, theoractically...Originally posted by Tiggerific:Your sentence absolutely smacks of total ignorance. Do you actually know what happens when a person has been arrested?
When a person is arrested and subsequently prosecuted, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that there is reason to believe that the person is guilty as charged. If not, the case would be thrown out and the accused person, accquited.
Why is the onus on the prosecution? Simple. If the prosecution cannot prove that there is indeed reason to believe that the person is guilty, then the accused person has nothing to defend himself against. If there are no charges to defend against, then why arrest and prosecute him at all?
If both elements are statisfied, then we have a trial.
So the prosecution has to prove that there is reason to believe that the person did what he has been accused of doing. And the accused person would then seek to defend himself (using a defence counsel or otherwise) against the said charges.
So, the accused people are indeed innocent until proven to be guilty.
Kindly get your facts right before you shoot your mouth off. -
In singapore, we are guilty unless proven. So we don't have human rights
-
To Tiggerific, you might want to do a bit more reading on the issue before accusing me of "shooting" my "mouth off". While our official take is "innocent until proven guilty", many times it is not the case.
One very recent example is the case of the Nigerian Trafficker.
“It is a fundamental human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty,” UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston said in a statement, noting that the trial judge ruled that although there was no direct evidence that Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi knew the capsules contained heroin ignorance did not exculpate him.
“The standard accepted by the international community is that capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts,” Mr. Alston added. “Singapore cannot reverse the burden and require a defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t know that he was carrying drugs.”
Awaiting an apology from you for presuming I'm guilty till proven innocent
-
our acquittal rate would have to depend on our lawyers, prosecutors, judges, all within the courts mah. different people, different perceptions. and perhaps also, different interpretations of the law?Originally posted by iveco:Care to explain why our acquittal rate is so low?
If Vidya SHanker had done what he did in London, I doubt it would have even gone to trial.
Singapore and London are two different places. Different people preside in the legal systems. Not possible to be totally the same as in London mah.
Could that have something to do with "If Vidya SHanker had done what he did in London, I doubt it would have even gone to trial"? Just thought to ask. -
Originally posted by SnowFlag:In Singapore, we are guilty unless proven.
Care to elaborate? It'd be nice, you know. Instead of giving one-liners all the time you could elaborate like everyone else and we could all continue to have a constructive discussion.Originally posted by SnowFlag:In singapore, we are guilty unless proven. So we don't have human rights -
have you run afoul of the law before, then?Originally posted by ShutterBug:Maybe, to prove that our Legal System works the way someone said it would, one should try to run afoul the law, and see how 'innocently' they treat you before granting you Bail.
Our Law and legal system is "unique" within our borders only.
And very well tailored by and for our almighty gov. -
Originally posted by spinsugar:
Haha.. I will apologise to you though.
To Tiggerific, you might want to do a bit more reading on the issue before accusing me of "shooting" my "mouth off". While our official take is "innocent until proven guilty", many times it is not the case.
One very recent example is the case of the Nigerian Trafficker.
[b]“It is a fundamental human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty,” UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston said in a statement, noting that the trial judge ruled that although there was no direct evidence that Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi knew the capsules contained heroin ignorance did not exculpate him.
“The standard accepted by the international community is that capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts,” Mr. Alston added. “Singapore cannot reverse the burden and require a defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t know that he was carrying drugs.”
Awaiting an apology from you for presuming I'm guilty till proven innocent [/b]
I'm sorry if my reply came as rather strongly-worded. In all probability, it was.
However, I do feel that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Maybe I'm just being idealistic, but I still think that the prosecution has to prove that there are grounds to believe that the accused is guilty, before we have a case lah. I'm sure you already know my viewpoint, as I have already expressed it with my previous post.
With regards to the Nigerian drug trafficking case, would you care to elaborate?
But I still feel that the same principles which I have talked about earlier did come to the fore: The Nigerian man came into Singapore, and he was found to be in the possession of drugs. Eventually, it would turn out that there were indeed grounds to believe that he was the one who brought in the drugs, and it was now up to him to prove that he was indeed not the owner of the drugs. Or at the very least, that he had no knowledge of the drugs.
The full facts of the case are probably known only by those who were present then I guess. Unless of course, someone here can present to us the facts...
And you're innocent until proven otherwise lah. erm... should I apologize again then? 
-
Running afoul of Laws in Singapore can be very easy to do, given the many rules and regulations that attracts jail-time over seemingly trivial offences - this I'm sure many lawyers agree to.Originally posted by Tiggerific:have you run afoul of the law before, then?
One need not have to commit an offence or a crime, to know or witness how an Accused or a Defendant is treated under Police Custody or within our Courts - the use of hand-cuffs and application of Bail, are adhered to RELIGIOUSLY.
And with our somewhat VAGUE Rights/Constitution in Singapore (as pointed out by Robertteh) that remains un-amended, I am more to the believe that an Accused (someone whom public has made a complain against) or a Defendant (someone whom charges are being brought against), are routinely treated as if Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
Here it is an automatic ASSUMPTION, whether you are caught red-handed or just under suspicion, you'll find yourself treated Guilty Until Proven Innocent. By this I mean that one shall be led away hand-cuffed, placed in a lock-up until bailed, as detailed in the recent news article.
During which time, especially wherein a person is truly indeed innocent of any crimes suspected or otherwise, damage tp reputation, occupation, and finances, will have been irriversibly incurred. -
Did you see what Bigmouthjoe posted? Such a thing should NOT happen in our 1st world society at all.Originally posted by Tiggerific:our acquittal rate would have to depend on our lawyers, prosecutors, judges, all within the courts mah. different people, different perceptions. and perhaps also, different interpretations of the law?
Singapore and London are two different places. Different people preside in the legal systems. Not possible to be totally the same as in London mah.
Could that have something to do with "If Vidya SHanker had done what he did in London, I doubt it would have even gone to trial"? Just thought to ask. -
Please lah... which part of the statutes say that?Originally posted by SnowFlag:In Singapore, we are guilty unless proven. -
Their minds are dead set that they are correct. In their minds, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In reality...Originally posted by iveco:Did you see what Bigmouthjoe posted? Such a thing should NOT happen in our 1st world society at all. -
I agree, running afoul of the laws in Singapore is very easy to do. Just take a look at the statutes and you can see a whole variety of laws which you can choose to break. However, not all laws attract jail time though. Quite a number, simply warrant a fine. One very common reason why people get jailed for seemingly trivial offences is actually a very simple one: Either they cannot afford to pay the fine, or they choose not to.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Running afoul of Laws in Singapore can be very easy to do, given the many rules and regulations that attracts jail-time over seemingly trivial offences - this I'm sure many lawyers agree to.
One need not have to commit an offence or a crime, to know or witness how an Accused or a Defendant is treated under Police Custody or within our Courts - the use of hand-cuffs and application of Bail, are adhered to RELIGIOUSLY.
And with our somewhat VAGUE Rights/Constitution in Singapore (as pointed out by Robertteh) that remains un-amended, I am more to the believe that an Accused (someone whom public has made a complain against) or a Defendant (someone whom charges are being brought against), are routinely treated as if Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
Here it is an automatic ASSUMPTION, whether you are caught red-handed or just under suspicion, you'll find yourself treated Guilty Until Proven Innocent. By this I mean that one shall be led away hand-cuffed, placed in a lock-up until bailed, as detailed in the recent news article.
During which time, especially wherein a person is truly indeed innocent of any crimes suspected or otherwise, damage tp reputation, occupation, and finances, will have been irriversibly incurred.
Handcuffs are used to secure a person, lest he run away. Upon being detained, and having sufficient grounds to believe that the person has indeed committed the offence that he has been accused of doing, the person would then have to be handcuffed, simply because one would have to secure him, before bringing him back to station. The reasoning is simple: if he were to escape from legal custody, how? It is the responsibility of the police to ensure that the person arrives back at station.
Bail is basically used to allow the accused person freedom until the date of his court hearing or any other legal proceeding. They also ensure that the person, upon being released on bail, returns to court/wherever he is required to report to on a future fixed date.
If the person 'jumps' bail, then the bailor would have to be held responsible for the safety of the accused person. So the use of handcuffs [or sometimes grip restraints] and bail have to be adhered to religiously, of course. Can you imagine if people placed under arrest escape because they were not secured? And you have to remember that many people already take advantage of the bail system by jumping bail. So with regards to the religious adheration of the usage of bail and handcuffs [or grip restraints], I leave it up to you to do the math.
How do you know how a person is treated under police custody when you are not that person yourself? Simply because, if a person is in police custody, no one can gain access to that person for he is already at the station.
I understand that one of your main concerns is that in which, "What if a person has been wrongfully arrested?" I completely understand your viewpoint, simply because plenty of damage has already been done, whether financially, to the reputaion, or otherwise.
Basically for situations like these, efforts can be made to clear one's name. If indeed a wrongful arrest has been made, it would be a big, big case indeed. The goverment would pay damages to the aggrieved person, and well as make an official apology, things like that [please don't say it hasn't happened before. because it has.] If i this particular case [the drug tip off] , I believe the next course of action would be to take legal action against the security guards, or the company that managed those goons.
Again, I must stress, if there are no grounds to believe that the person has committed the offence he was accused of doing, he would be released, and no charges filed. The drug tipoff case we earlier discussed is a classic example.
And lastly, all I can say is this: No legal system is without its flaws. There will always be loopholes for people to exploit, regardless of the country that one finds oneself in. -
Aiyoh, why you say until like that? We are all having a constructive discussion here mah. You post your opinions, with things to back them up, and I do the same. It's not about who is correct or wrong. It's just constructive discussion. That's what this forum is all about, right?Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:Their minds are dead set that they are correct. In their minds, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In reality...
And to complete your sentence: In reality, there are many shades of grey. -
I can also go down the same path and say the same thing as you: that your mind is dead set that you are correct. And that in your mind, the accused is guilty until proven innocent.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:Their minds are dead set that they are correct. In their minds, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In reality... -
Paiseh lah, i retract my statement.Originally posted by Tiggerific:I can also go down the same path and say the same thing as you: that your mind is dead set that you are correct. And that in your mind, the accused is guilty until proven innocent.
Anyway you read what I post here, it's somewhere on page 2... I think it's quite unfair you agree?