Woe are the Poor, and Accused.. Where's the Justice?
-
Hmm.. you're referring to the drug bust case is it?Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:Paiseh lah, i retract my statement.
Anyway you read what I post here, it's somewhere on page 2... I think it's quite unfair you agree?
I agree, it is rather unfair. But you have to agree that for this case, there really isn't much that the authorities can do. They busted one guy, who in turn informed them who allegedly supplied him with the drugs.
So the CNB went for the unfortunate guy. But in cases like this, if indeed he was innocent and cleared, the next course of action would be to take legal action against the busted guy? I believe he can be sued for, at the very least, defamation. All it takes is for his claims to be proved incorrect, just like they were this instance.
But unfortunately, the CNB is like that one. I guess they would be more or less excused as they deal with thugs, and as such they too would stoop to relatively boorish behaviour.
Which is also why you can find quite a number of allegations of abuse of power, excessively ill-treatment and other such stuff against the CNB.
Feel sorry for the poor guy. He got framed. For instances like this, it is indeed unfair. Perhaps a motion can be proposed to the courts or their management to reduce the red tape that afflicts those who deal with legal matters. After all, the guy won the case and cleared his name, so the very least he should be entitled to, in my opinion, is the cost that he spent on legal fees.
I wonder if anything has been done though. -
Given the financial status of the said unfortunate individual in discussion, what are his chances of sueing the other party for Defamation? And, do we know how much it takes to sue someone for Defamation?Originally posted by Tiggerific:Hmm.. you're referring to the drug bust case is it?
I agree, it is rather unfair. But you have to agree that for this case, there really isn't much that the authorities can do. They busted one guy, who in turn informed them who allegedly supplied him with the drugs.
So the CNB went for the unfortunate guy. But in cases like this, if indeed he was innocent and cleared, the next course of action would be to take legal action against the busted guy? I believe he can be sued for, at the very least, defamation. All it takes is for his claims to be proved incorrect, just like they were this instance.
But unfortunately, the CNB is like that one. I guess they would be more or less excused as they deal with thugs, and as such they too would stoop to relatively boorish behaviour.
Which is also why you can find quite a number of allegations of abuse of power, excessively ill-treatment and other such stuff against the CNB.
Feel sorry for the poor guy. He got framed. For instances like this, it is indeed unfair. Perhaps a motion can be proposed to the courts or their management to reduce the red tape that afflicts those who deal with legal matters. After all, the guy won the case and cleared his name, so the very least he should be entitled to, in my opinion, is the cost that he spent on legal fees.
I wonder if anything has been done though.
I'm afraid it looks like a lopsided advantage, wherein the Poor Accused/Defendant, is indeed defenseless in various aspects under our system.
I feel that our system has not made any Provision by way of our country's prevailing Constitution, that Protects the Rights of The People in the lower rung of our society. -
Lower rung of society?Originally posted by ShutterBug:Given the financial status of the said unfortunate individual in discussion, what are his chances of sueing the other party for Defamation? And, do we know how much it takes to sue someone for Defamation?
I'm afraid it looks like a lopsided advantage, wherein the Poor Accused/Defendant, is indeed defenseless in various aspects under our system.
I feel that our system has not made any Provision by way of our country's prevailing Constitution, that Protects the Rights of The People in the lower rung of our society.
People from the lower rung of society can seek help from legal aid if need be. Some will qualify, and some won't. Depends on the creiteria bah. If one is in dire financial straits and still cannot be allowed legal aid, there's not much we can do except i) borrow and ii) see mp. mp might be able to help. sure, it's not much, but i believe that this is what we can do at most at our level.
and with regards to "I'm afraid it looks like a lopsided advantage, wherein the Poor Accused/Defendant, is indeed defenseless in various aspects under our system", i'm afraid it applies everywhere you go. The laws of each and every country might differ, but in most aspects they are similar.
and I know you "feel that our system has not made any Provision by way of our country's prevailing Constitution, that Protects the Rights of The People in the lower rung of our society", but we are in Singapore after all. We aren't as the same as some other countries. No two systems in any two countries are the same. -
Because we catch the right guy most of the timeOriginally posted by iveco:Care to explain why our acquittal rate is so low?
-
Where's your evidence?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. -
We're living within the matrix of the said 'evidence'...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Where's your evidence? -
Yes, Mr Know-it-all.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Because we catch the right guy most of the time 
-
Are you a singaporean by the way, or are you living in cave all these years?Originally posted by Tiggerific: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. -
i am a singaporean, born and bred here.Originally posted by SnowFlag:Are you a singaporean by the way, or are you living in cave all these years?
to be talking about issues concerning Singapore when I'm not Singaporean, or if i'm not staying here, would be rather pretentious and hypocritical, wouldn't you say so? -
Are u also one of those sent by the gahment to post anonymously?Originally posted by Tiggerific:i am a singaporean, born and bred here. to be talking about issues concerning Singapore when I'm not Singaporean, or if i'm not staying here, would be rather pretentious and hypocritical, wouldn't you say so? 
-
Originally posted by SnowFlag:Are u also one of those sent by the gahment to post anonymously? of course not. I'm not hiding behind anything, and I have nothing to hide either. I'm just making my point, just like some others [eg bigmouthjoe] are, for the sake of a genuine two-way discussion.
we're all bound to have differences of opinion mah. so you express yours, with stuff behind them of course, and I express mine lah. it's just that, for the sake of this discussion, it would be nice to elaborate on your opinions instead of just giving one-liners. it's what we all do here, isn't it, to just discuss things? -
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.
I find your explanation a bit confusing, you mean that the person is acquitted at the time of the arrest or after a trial?
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?
Isn't it during a trial that the prosecution has to prove that there is reason to believe that the person is guilty? If the person is not charged, then there wouldn't be a trial, right? Who is the party that charges the arrested person, the police or the prosecution?
I find your sentence quite confusing ''if there are no charges to defend against, then why arrest and prosecute him at all?''Which comes first? the arrest or the charge? Care to elaborate?
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.
I may sound like i'm nit picking on details but we have to get the facts right, don't we? A person is indeed innocent until proven guilty, it's just that I'm quite confused by your explanation. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
haha.. looking back, i guess you're right. i can get confused by my own words too.
[/i]
I may sound like i'm nit picking on details but we have to get the facts right, don't we? A person is indeed innocent until proven guilty, it's just that I'm quite confused by your explanation.[/b] anyway, to answer your question:
once a person ahs been placed under arrest , he/she will be brought back to the divisional headquarters of the said location of the incident. the case will then be forwarded to a investigator who will be in charge of the entire case. acquitting the person will only come about after a trial.
however, not all cases go to trial: sometimes the accused person might end up pleading guilty to the investigator during the course of the investigation. a case will only go to trial if a person die-die does not wish to plead guilty to the investigator. the accused person will tell the investigator thatn he/she does not wish to plead guilty and would like to seek redress in court. the case will then go to court.
however, if it is established that the accused person is merely seeking trial to delay the inevitable, he will be dealt with a harsher sentence by the courts lah. simply because he would actually have wasted everyone's time. besides, sentences will normally backdate anyway, so for the accused people, if they are indeed guilty, this is one 'incentive' for them. cos it could've been much worse mah.
initial charges will be put to the accused person by the investigator in charge of the case. if it goes to the extent of a trial, then the DPP will decide if he wishes to get involved in the case. normally they will, and then it is they who will take over the lead in court if not, there will be a police officer in the courts who will do the prosecuting. Basically, DPPs are lawyers acting on the behalf of the law, as opposed to defence counsels who are acting on behalf of a client/accused person.
with regards to which comes first, the arrest or the charge... well, normally the arrest comes first lah. then the charge. hope my explanation, despite being lenghty once again, proves to be helpful... =) -
can explain your source of information?Originally posted by Tiggerific:haha.. looking back, i guess you're right. i can get confused by my own words too. anyway, to answer your question:
once a person ahs been placed under arrest , he/she will be brought back to the divisional headquarters of the said location of the incident. the case will then be forwarded to a investigator who will be in charge of the entire case. acquitting the person will only come about after a trial.
however, not all cases go to trial: sometimes the accused person might end up pleading guilty to the investigator during the course of the investigation. a case will only go to trial if a person die-die does not wish to plead guilty to the investigator. the accused person will tell the investigator thatn he/she does not wish to plead guilty and would like to seek redress in court. the case will then go to court.
however, if it is established that the accused person is merely seeking trial to delay the inevitable, he will be dealt with a harsher sentence by the courts lah. simply because he would actually have wasted everyone's time. besides, sentences will normally backdate anyway, so for the accused people, if they are indeed guilty, this is one 'incentive' for them. cos it could've been much worse mah.
initial charges will be put to the accused person by the investigator in charge of the case. during the course of the trial [if it goes to that extent] then the DPP will decide if he wishes to get involved in the case. normally they will, and then it is they who will take over in court [if not, there will be a police officer in the courts to do the prosecuting]. DPPs are, basically lawyers acting on the behalf of the law [as opposed to defence counsels who are acting on behalf of a client/accused person].
with regards to which comes first, the arrest or the charge... well, normally the arrest comes first lah. then the charge. hope my explanation, despite being lenghty once again, proves to be helpful... =) -
Mah tah?Originally posted by Tiggerific:haha.. looking back, i guess you're right. i can get confused by my own words too. anyway, to answer your question:
once a person ahs been placed under arrest , he/she will be brought back to the divisional headquarters of the said location of the incident. the case will then be forwarded to a investigator who will be in charge of the entire case. acquitting the person will only come about after a trial.....
... well, normally the arrest comes first lah. then the charge. hope my explanation, despite being lenghty once again, proves to be helpful... =) -
well, i live through this experience almost every single day. hope it's sufficient enough to explain...Originally posted by SnowFlag:can explain your source of information? -
[quote]Originally posted by Tiggerific:
[b]
initial charges will be put to the accused person by the investigator in charge of the case. during the course of the trial [if it goes to that extent] then the DPP will decide if he wishes to get involved in the case.
Just want to clarify again, isn't it before a trial that DPP decides whether to get involved? When does the trial start? What about claiming trial? After the accused person has been charged in court by the investigator?
normally they will, and then it is they who will take over in court [if not, there will be a police officer in the courts to do the prosecuting]. DPPs are, basically lawyers acting on the behalf of the law [as opposed to defence counsels who are acting on behalf of a client/accused person]. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
eh... oops... another blooper on my part.
[quote]Originally posted by Tiggerific:
[b]
[b]
initial charges will be put to the accused person by the investigator in charge of the case. during the course of the trial [if it goes to that extent] then the DPP will decide if he wishes to get involved in the case.
Just want to clarify again, isn't it before a trial that DPP decides whether to get involved? When does the trial start? What about claiming trial? After the accused person has been charged in court by the investigator?
normally they will, and then it is they who will take over in court [if not, there will be a police officer in the courts to do the prosecuting]. DPPs are, basically lawyers acting on the behalf of the law [as opposed to defence counsels who are acting on behalf of a client/accused person].[/b]
got caught up in typing out the reply i guess.
yes, you are right: it is before the trial that the DPP decides if he wishes to take on the case. when the trial starts would depend on the court, because after the person has been served with the charge by the investiagtor, he will have to answer to it. he will either say that he wishes to plead guilty, or that he wishes to claim trial to prove his innocence. the courts will then be informed accordingly, and then they will get back to the investigator with regards to the date of the trial. -
thanks for explaining the process, just wanted to have a better understanding.Originally posted by Tiggerific:eh... oops... another blooper on my part. got caught up in typing out the reply i guess.
yes, you are right: it is before the trial that the DPP decides if he wishes to take on the case. when the trial starts would depend on the court, because after the person has been served with the charge by the investiagtor, he will have to answer to it. he will either say that he wishes to plead guilty, or that he wishes to claim trial to prove his innocence. the courts will then be informed accordingly, and then they will get back to the investigator with regards to the date of the trial. -
Pleasure's all mine.Originally posted by saffron60:thanks for explaining the process, just wanted to have a better understanding. I'm not exactly a mountain of knowledge like mr oxford mushroom, but I try to help when I can lah. Feel free to message me if there's anything you'd like to know. I can't promise everything, but I can promise to at least try. 