singapore No.1 in EXECUTIONS
-
I shall say nothing except ask you to reflect on this situation:
we do our best by getting those we can which are, fortunately or unfortunately, the "mules", who're mostly dumb bastards who're greedy for money or were forced into it by debts or addiction.
At Cambodia International Airport, u leave your luggage on a seat at teh departure hall when going to the loo. There is nobody to look after it for you since you are travelling alone.
After leaving the toilet, you board the plane.
On arrival at SIngapore, Customs discovers 20g of heroin in your bag. immediately, youa re arrested and hauled to the police. In court, you are informed by the judge that you are to be hanged the next day.
I hope you can reflect on this properly and with a heart.
the hopeful pikamaster -
you are really mocking the education system here.
am i mocking it or are u placing blind faith in something that is at best, open ended.but anyway, the education im talking about is not what you may be thinking of. I am talking about MORAL EDUCATION,
criminals do not necessarily suffer from a lack of morals u know... many are "truly repentant" afterwards... and many will say that they would't normally have done it, but they were "blinded by greed", or "driven by circumstances". does it change the nature of their crimes? or the fact that they did it? heck no...and what is the cause? ironically, it is what allegedly gives us racial and religious harmony: secularism.
i do believe this point to be nonsense. we have a secular state, not an atheistic state. there's a difference. and we are allowed to practice whatever religions we so choose.
so secularism isn't a problem. but assuming that religious faith pre-empts crimes is just bizarre.
why would anyone assume that an individual who is a firm believer in a certain faith would definitely, 100% not commit any crimes?you talk about treating issues in their entirety. well, the Death Penalty does not treat ANY issue in entirety.
and eliminating it specifically would be doing justice to the complexity of the issue and addressing it in its entirety???
stupid politicians making morally blind statements aside, i believe that nothing can be ruled out in something as complex as a human being.perhaps, i need to remind you of the proverb: prevention is better than cure.
deterrent IS part of prevention. while executions may not necessarily be the cure, it must nevertheless form a component of it... at least until humans evolve further and it can be removed... now? no way... remember what i said? persuarion AND coercion.the thoroughly disappointed pikamaster
i do not post to impress u. leave your ego out of this.
and as for someone spiking my bags with dope, i was just wondering if u're familiar with the institution of the "judiciary"? and the concept of a "fair trial"? and the fact that the death sentance is only imposed after "due process of law" and executions are only carried out "after all avenues of appeal had been exhausted"...
we are talking about the death sentance and the due process of the law, not summary executions that takes place willy nilly above the law. -
I do hopw you haven't been brainwashed by teh propaganda we have in our school textbooks.Originally posted by CX:i do not post to impress u. leave your ego out of this.
and as for someone spiking my bags with dope, i was just wondering if u're familiar with the institution of the "judiciary"? and the concept of a "fair trial"? and the fact that the death sentance is only imposed after "due process of law" and executions are only carried out "after all avenues of appeal had been exhausted"...
we are talking about the death sentance and the due process of the law, not summary executions that takes place willy nilly above the law.
Have you heard of nazi Germany? im sure you have. Down there, alot of atrocities were committed. they were legal by German laws, yes, but nonetheless they are still cruel. In fact, most of these were carried out in the "due process of law" in Germany. SO ,in that case, the law was wrong.
Down here in SIngapore, yes, i know our justice system is ranked fourth in the world, but have you read accounts of defamation trials by AI and SFD? perhaps you haven't, so let me enlighten you.
All the things you are saying is basically legal jargonic propaganda. SInce the Death Sentence is mandatory for drug trafficking, what kind of appeal is possible. btw, did u notice that in the situation i quoted, you were "brought to court" and not "dumped into jail"?
and anyway, "all avenues of appeal" sounds alot, but in reality there are only two avenues: The COurt of appeal and the President. Now, let's see, teh COurt of Appeal has judges who don't have power against mandatory sentences and the President is just a rubber stamp of teh cabinet, ie. he can be pressured, so where does that leave the poor person? nowhere at all!.
the pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
i'm past the age of textbooks... haven't touched one for many years.
I do hope you haven't been brainwashed by teh propaganda we have in our school textbooks.Have you heard of nazi Germany? im sure you have. Down there, alot of atrocities were committed. they were legal by German laws, yes, but nonetheless they are still cruel. In fact, most of these were carried out in the "due process of law" in Germany. SO ,in that case, the law was wrong.
Nazi athrocities were legal because article 21 of the Weimar Constitution allowed for emergency powers to the chancellor if it could be passed with a 2/3 majority in the Reichstag. So it was "legal" only because the constitution suspended itself.
i'll give u that much: that legal doesn't mean right. but don't draw bizarre parallels between 2 cases that don't fit. do we have the Gestapo running around, imprisoning pple? do we have Brownshirts running around beating up pple? do we have concentration camps with showers disguised as gas chambers?
gee... then they should've thought of that before bringing all that dope into the country. mind u, its no big secret that we hang traffickers. this information is very prominently desseminated.
...and anyway, "all avenues of appeal" sounds alot, but in reality there are only two avenues: The COurt of appeal and the President. Now, let's see, teh COurt of Appeal has judges who don't have power against mandatory sentences and the President is just a rubber stamp of teh cabinet, ie. he can be pressured, so where does that leave the poor person? nowhere at all!.
the pikamaster
so what's your point? that taxpayers money should be wasted to allow a convicted criminal unlimited appeals and re-trials?? why bother bringing criminals into courts anyway if u know they're gonna appeal till they walk eventually. -
the law is based entirely on evidence, only in rare cases when the law will take into account the plight of the accused...Originally posted by pikamaster:I shall say nothing except ask you to reflect on this situation:
At Cambodia International Airport, u leave your luggage on a seat at teh departure hall when going to the loo. There is nobody to look after it for you since you are travelling alone.
After leaving the toilet, you board the plane.
On arrival at SIngapore, Customs discovers 20g of heroin in your bag. immediately, youa re arrested and hauled to the police. In court, you are informed by the judge that you are to be hanged the next day.
I hope you can reflect on this properly and with a heart.
the hopeful pikamaster
in this case, the accused should have practice responsibility, he should be responsible for his own actions, imagine a place where the law only consider the plight of accused?
i do agree that the law can be quite harsh at times, however, without this tight law system, wouldn't this place be in chaos...
*The statue outside the court had her eyes blindfolded* -
i wonder how does we link ourself to the nazis?Originally posted by pikamaster:I do hopw you haven't been brainwashed by teh propaganda we have in our school textbooks.
Have you heard of nazi Germany? im sure you have. Down there, alot of atrocities were committed. they were legal by German laws, yes, but nonetheless they are still cruel. In fact, most of these were carried out in the "due process of law" in Germany. SO ,in that case, the law was wrong.
Down here in SIngapore, yes, i know our justice system is ranked fourth in the world, but have you read accounts of defamation trials by AI and SFD? perhaps you haven't, so let me enlighten you.
All the things you are saying is basically legal jargonic propaganda. SInce the Death Sentence is mandatory for drug trafficking, what kind of appeal is possible. btw, did u notice that in the situation i quoted, you were "brought to court" and not "dumped into jail"?
and anyway, "all avenues of appeal" sounds alot, but in reality there are only two avenues: The COurt of appeal and the President. Now, let's see, teh COurt of Appeal has judges who don't have power against mandatory sentences and the President is just a rubber stamp of teh cabinet, ie. he can be pressured, so where does that leave the poor person? nowhere at all!.
the pikamaster
didnt know we have concentration camps?
n what propaganda in textbooks??? if you are talking about Nazis Germany in History text...
-
I'm not worried about HARSHNESS of our laws, my main concern is with their FAIRNESS.
Unfortunately, the law here certainly operates with the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" rather then innocent until proven guilty. A single sly word from a female, lie or truth irrevelant, will end up getting you having some jail time, is a good example.
It can be argued that this way of operating keeps us on our toes and nice people who are very careful with the law, but unfortunately it also has the effect of coming down extremely harshly on people who are not entirely to blame for their crimes, if they are at all. The burdern of proof is always with the accused, not the prosceution.
Where are the checks and balances to make sure that legal powers are not overapplied? It seems that it's almost too easy to run afoul of the law in Singapore (to tell the truth, we probably break several laws each and every day). My beef is not with harsh punishments, but with fair methods that have heard each and every side of the story. -
i think theres only one place in this world tt still uses the notion tt one is guilty until proven otherwise, and tt is china (pls correct me if im wrong). singapore relies on the std innocent until proven guilty, and for murders its beyond reasonable doubt. for others, to diff degrees. as for crimes against the female, our laws tend to protect them - a relic of the past tt shud be relooked, i agree. but still, they shud be protected.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I'm not worried about HARSHNESS of our laws, my main concern is with their FAIRNESS.
Unfortunately, the law here certainly operates with the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" rather then innocent until proven guilty. A single sly word from a female, lie or truth irrevelant, will end up getting you having some jail time, is a good example.
Where are the checks and balances to make sure that legal powers are not overapplied? It seems that it's almost too easy to run afoul of the law in Singapore (to tell the truth, we probably break several laws each and every day). My beef is not with harsh punishments, but with fair methods that have heard each and every side of the story.
checks and balances? hm.. i cant say there is any. but is there any in the other countries where laws are supposedly more fair (let's not compare with the jury system). i haf asked myself the question too of who are the judges, being human too, to judge on ppl. but i guess apart from relying on computers to do so, or on a larger panel of judges, wat else can we haf? o cos we oso need other channels for appeal and redress. but if we begin to even doubt if our judges can mete out fair judgements, den where wil we end up? -
and what is the cause? ironically, it is what allegedly gives us racial and religious harmony: secularism. One thing that religion does that any law, no matter how perfect it is, cannot do, is to give the person a fear of supernatural consequences or a desire to be elevated to teh same level as a supernatrual deity. Either way would be more effective in preventing crime than any law could. the religion im talking about here is not any cults or religious extremists. Im talking about the Establishments, like true CHristianity, Pure Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism.
I am pretty sensitive toward religious issue, and sad to say I find the above paragraph a bit hard to digest... Sorry but I had to sidetrack a bit...
Can religious stop crimes from taking place ? R u sure ? I believe it very much depend on ones' interpretation of the religion. If religion can prevent crimes, then there will be no such things such as terrorists and religious wars.
I have heard of people saying this, "I won't hesistate to kill u as I know Jesus and God will forgive me". Of course people will complain tat he had a twisted interpretation of the religion, thus cannot be linked together with the main religion. But then again who knows wat should the real interpretation should be ? Why is there the differentiation between Catholic and Christian when the bible is the same ? Does Al Qaeda member really have a twisted interpretation of their religion ? Not really because their holy scripture really do mention about the jihab or holy war. It is like an exception clause... Muslims should like peace and not violence. But if their brethen is bullied they had to draw arms to assist them. Religiously and literally speaking, the self bombing religious fanatics aren't wrong. The "real" form for Muslim may not be the one mainstream is applying now. This "real" form is only because tis is the form the Gov or society prefers. If being religious will prevent crime, then there will be no such incident like jailing of Galileo and witch burning incident in the west ages before. The bible speaks God of mass murdering people (Noah's Ark, Moses, family member of Job) without valid reasons, making it very useless in preventing people from committing wars and murders.
Personally I had heard of another wrong interpretation of religion in the following story. A Muslim is caught being a drug abuser. When he was in lock up, he paid overwhelming details about his religion like whether his bunk mates r eating halal etc. When question why does he take drugs then, he replied Quran says they can not eat pork and take alcohol, but they do not say anything about drugs and smoking so it is okay for them to do it. (NOTE : Tis is an example of a person having a wrong interpretation of his religion. I am not trying to put down the religion. Muslim scholars had said tat the real interpretation of Quran is Muslim should not do anything harmful to their body, thus drugs and cigarrettes r no no too)
Again I have to say, religion acts like a double edge sword. It may help in small crimes like theft and cheating. However it justifies terrible sins like war and terrorists and illegal imprisonment. It depends on how people interprete their religion. Sad to say, there r always a lot of people having the wrong interpretation in religion. Or sad to say, sometimes religious made people lose the way instead of finding it. -
Unfortunately, the law here certainly operates with the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" rather then innocent until proven guilty. A single sly word from a female, lie or truth irrevelant, will end up getting you having some jail time, is a good example.
Funny, why does u keep insisting tat singapore is operating in the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" ? I thought I have mentioned in the previous mail tat before they charged a person to court, the police must have gathered all the necessary substantial evidence before wasting their time, the Public Prosecutor times and the judges time.
The man is innocent during the entire hearing in court. "A single sly female" is a witness trying to prove tat the Man is guilty. The court thus is determining if he is guilty from the statement of the 2 parties. It is innocent before proven guilty isn't it ?
Frankly for molest cases, little evidence can be gathered. A man molest a girl in private. Wat other evidence can the girl produce to prove she is victimised ? In tis sense, the law believes a woman will not take the trouble to charge a man in court if there is not a shred of truth in it. The other question is why doesn't the girl charge other people but only the molester ?
Several defenses can be employed, if the alleged molester can proves she has a personal feud with him, it may help his case substantially. If the girl is emotionally unstable, it can also acts in the guy favour... BTW I had gone too deep in it... -
On paper yes, and it seems that way... but one only needs to read the fine print to realize that their substantial evidence is not as substantial as we would like it to be, and of course, the problem is that we have a heavily pro-prosceution court system, with no jury and the like, with all the powers of judgement resting on well... the judge.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Funny, why does u keep insisting tat singapore is operating in the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" ? I thought I have mentioned in the previous mail tat before they charged a person to court, the police must have gathered all the necessary substantial evidence before wasting their time, the Public Prosecutor times and the judges time.
The man is innocent during the entire hearing in court. "A single sly female" is a witness trying to prove tat the Man is guilty. The court thus is determining if he is guilty from the statement of the 2 parties. It is innocent before proven guilty isn't it ?
Basically, while we may claim to operate on a innocent until proven guilty, do we operate that way in reality? Do we really have a truly fair and impartial court system or one that handicaps the offender?
Of course, one needs to note the "favourable" rulings against opposition people whenever their case comes up in court. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:instead of finding it. [/b]
do us a favor, edit your thread so it doesn't stretch the page.
you put in [code] instead of [quote] and it really messed the page up. -
sorry :p I wanted to put as quote but some silly errors came out for the previous stretching error...
If u talk about the ruling for opposition parties and LKY lawsuits, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH U ! These lawsuits are a real mockery to the political and judiciary systemin singapore. Frankly I hate to see these kind of lawsuits as much as u do, and I felt really unjust for the opposition parties.
However to the main topic, in the case of lawsuits not related to political issues, singapore law system is still fair. Jury system is the real unfair system since emotions will come into play. Making people who knows little in judiciary system as jury members means tat the whole lawsuits will turn out to be more emotional than logical. A judge, with years of experiences will be more fair since they will less likely get into emotions.
I still feels tat singapore court is still fair and impartial, regarding to normal criminal lawsuits... -
If this is the case with the civil court, one only needs to wonder what would happen if any politicaly dangerous individual was up for destruction in the criminal court.Originally posted by stupidissmart:sorry :p I wanted to put as quote but some silly errors came out for the previous stretching error...
If u talk about the ruling for opposition parties and LKY lawsuits, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH U ! These lawsuits are a real mockery to the political and judiciary systemin singapore. Frankly I hate to see these kind of lawsuits as much as u do, and I felt really unjust for the opposition parties.
However to the main topic, in the case of lawsuits not related to political issues, singapore law system is still fair. Jury system is the real unfair system since emotions will come into play. Making people who knows little in judiciary system as jury members means tat the whole lawsuits will turn out to be more emotional than logical. A judge, with years of experiences will be more fair since they will less likely get into emotions.
I still feels tat singapore court is still fair and impartial, regarding to normal criminal lawsuits...
The court remains fair as long as the judge himself is fair... but if he himself is harsh, biased towards offender/victim, or just plain ignorant of the implication of evidence, we can be sure the result would be anything but justice. And it dosen't take a alrge ammount of corruption in a judge to do a person in. The risk is almost certain for people to recieve extreme judgements in either direction (soft/harsh) because each judge him/herself represents a diferent strata and worldview of soceity. Is it any surprise that some times our sentencing seems to be surprisingly harsh for seemingly minor offences?
A jury system is far more robust to this kind of miscarriage justice, by selecting people from all walks of life there is a balancing out of the extremes in people and the end result better reflects on the true opinions and judgement of the soceity rather then one person.
In the end, sometimes we wonder... are the people judged on the laws as deemed by the people of Singapore? Or each individual judge's view of it? -
i really think we should leave politics out of this discussion... becaus once u introduce that into any equation, even a supposedly "perfect" system can turn to s.h.i.t...
i don't suppose that the jury system is any better in that regard...
and since we're talking about the death penalty; the same death penalty that is only madatory for very few of the worst crimes and imposed only after due process of law, what's the business of politics in it?
think the powers that be can frame a political opponent for murder? or for trafficking dope?? just to have him hanged and taken out of the picture???? that's frankly absurd... they have them taken out of the picture well enough with libel suits.
either the death penalty really shouldn't be part of this discussion, or the issue of the compliant judiciary in ruling against opposition politicians shouldn't be lumped together here. -
You are correct, we have digressed.
-
politics has much to do with the Death Penalty.Originally posted by CX:i really think we should leave politics out of this discussion... becaus once u introduce that into any equation, even a supposedly "perfect" system can turn to s.h.i.t...
i don't suppose that the jury system is any better in that regard...
and since we're talking about the death penalty; the same death penalty that is only madatory for very few of the worst crimes and imposed only after due process of law, what's the business of politics in it?
think the powers that be can frame a political opponent for murder? or for trafficking dope?? just to have him hanged and taken out of the picture???? that's frankly absurd... they have them taken out of the picture well enough with libel suits.
either the death penalty really shouldn't be part of this discussion, or the issue of the compliant judiciary in ruling against opposition politicians shouldn't be lumped together here.
For example, we can NEVER be known as a gracious society if the Death penalty persists.
besides, anything can happen.
the relation of a compliant judiciary tells us much about how the court would rule, esp. in the case of political opponents. but politicians sabo aside, we are talking about teh POWER of the court here.
It is a fact that we don't have judiciary since PAP fears sth called "popular opinion". instead, we have ONE judge presiding in court. however, against mandatory sentences, the Judge is basically a puppet of teh LAW. SO there is no fair trial in whatever you have been mentioning. the only way to get a pardon is through a plea of CLemency to the President, but our President..err...is a PAP guy, dun u see? even poor Mr OTC had to sign warrants whether he liked to or not, in order to "uphold the law". In other words, most of the time (in fact all of the time) there are no pleas of CLemency granted, not even if the foreign affairs department of anotehr country were to intervene.
the Presidents are either PAP-brainwashed or PAP slaves.
Singapore is pretty crap!
the pikamaster
P.S.: u shud be ashamed that a TEEN is telling you all this!!! -
if Singapore is pretty crap..get out now..teen..Originally posted by pikamaster:politics has much to do with the Death Penalty.
For example, we can NEVER be known as a gracious society if the Death penalty persists.
besides, anything can happen.
the relation of a compliant judiciary tells us much about how the court would rule, esp. in the case of political opponents. but politicians sabo aside, we are talking about teh POWER of the court here.
It is a fact that we don't have judiciary since PAP fears sth called "popular opinion". instead, we have ONE judge presiding in court. however, against mandatory sentences, the Judge is basically a puppet of teh LAW. SO there is no fair trial in whatever you have been mentioning. the only way to get a pardon is through a plea of CLemency to the President, but our President..err...is a PAP guy, dun u see? even poor Mr OTC had to sign warrants whether he liked to or not, in order to "uphold the law". In other words, most of the time (in fact all of the time) there are no pleas of CLemency granted, not even if the foreign affairs department of anotehr country were to intervene.
the Presidents are either PAP-brainwashed or PAP slaves.
Singapore is pretty crap!
the pikamaster
P.S.: u shud be ashamed that a TEEN is telling you all this!!!
btw..most of your post are crappy too..
-
Originally posted by pikamaster:
and please elaborate this point? what exactly do u mean by a "gracious society"? i suspect u to be throwing out buzzwords u heard from the propaganda of the hollywood imperialists... buzzwords which u do not adequately understand.
politics has much to do with the Death Penalty.
For example, we can NEVER be known as a gracious society if the Death penalty persists. besides, anything can happen.
anything can happen ANYWAY... whether u have a judge, a jury, or judge dredd. and like i said... are we framing and hanging opposition politicians???
the relation of a compliant judiciary tells us much about how the court would rule, esp. in the case of political opponents. but politicians sabo aside, we are talking about teh POWER of the court here.
if not, then the role of the judiciary in handling criminal cases at least, is not suspect. let me put it to u another way: u broke your leg. would u put your arm in a cast? what needs to be fixed is the judiciary's handling of libel cases, especially when they involve politicians.
and u argue about the POWER of the court? so u prefer a benevolent and POWERLESS judiciary? hee... u can't abuse power if have none right? 
It is a fact that we don't have judiciary since PAP fears sth called "popular opinion". instead, we have ONE judge presiding in court. however, against mandatory sentences, the Judge is basically a puppet of teh LAW.
the law is not a jailer. it is a GUIDE. and how useful is popular opinion in deciding complex legal issues? why do u think lady justice is always portrayed blindfolded ?
and the judge does have a choice: u can either be guilty OR innocent. and thats plenty! what? u want 50% guilty? or 75% guilty? WTF? guilty is guilty. 15g is 15g. premeditated murder is premeditated murder. if the defence argues manslaughter and proves it, the accused doesn't hang. if he argues he didn't do it, and proves it, he doesn't hang! AND THAT'S PLENTY OF CHOICES. ITS CALLED A FAIR TRIAL!SO there is no fair trial in whatever you have been mentioning...
so u want a bill clinton in office? one who signs presidential pardons on his last day in office to get all his cronies outta hot soup? or u want the judiciary to capitulate every bloody time some ambassador squeals to the press? u call THAT an independent judiciary? i call that, and your ideas, childish and farcical.the Presidents are either PAP-brainwashed or PAP slaves.
try proving that... talk is cheap. u don't know enough about ANY of them to make that claim.
Singapore is pretty crap!the pikamaster
u should be honoured that i choose to engage you as an equal. this isn't a pissing contest. u wanna insult your own intelligence? thats fine by me.
P.S.: u shud be ashamed that a TEEN is telling you all this!!!
its obviously not enough to just watch hollywood TV trials to get a good idea about how a legal system should work. too much john grisham too my boy... -
Just a question...
Does the name pikamaster has anything to do with pikachu ? -
Yes, it does, but that does not influence any of what im posting, juz in case u thought so.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Just a question...
Does the name pikamaster has anything to do with pikachu ?
sigh...n i thought pple here were more objective...CX managed to prove me wrong.... -
CX,
before calling pple anything and making smart-alecky comments, perhaps u might like to read this abt how reforming prisoners is better than punnishing (jailing) them. oh, and remember that teh Death Penalty provides no chance for reformation...
TODAY NewsPaper
January 26th 2004
When jail may not be the solution
An alternative could be 'restorative justice', which involves offenders making direct amends
Silva Kandiah
[email protected]
Jail — for molesters, grandmothers who harbour illegals, a mother with a handicapped son and, in the United States, for those who videotape movies.
.
There is much debate about the length of the sentences, but the larger debate should be about whether the world's justice systems are relying too much on jail sentences.
.
It is sad that there was no alternative punishment for the mother who had to go to jail and be separated from her handicapped son.
.
The purpose of prison is for restraint, retribution and rehabilitation. The two former intents are mostly fulfilled, but the issue is whether there are more civilised and less wasteful alternatives. As for the rehabilitative goal, there is evidence to say that it has failed.
.
Even in Singapore, where the prison system is doing well by world standards, a study released by the research and statistics department of the Subordinate Courts showed that 58 per cent — or 33,167 of the 56,904 crimes committed in 2002 were by repeat offenders. It was a 10 per cent increase over 2001.
.
More worrying was the finding that repeat offenders were committing more than one crime, at an average of 2.3 crimes in 2002 compared to 1.7 in 2001.
.
Did prison stays make them worse?
.
In the US, the Plain Truth magazine reported that, despite being called correctional institutions, the prisons have become so overcrowded that "the American justice system has all it can do to house inmates while they serve their time. Seeking to reform inmates is no longer a priority in most facilities".
.
Also in the US, statistics indicate that many released prisoners return to crime — often worse ones — and become targets for recruitment by organised crime in and outside the prison system and by terrorist groups.
.
The Plain Truth asked: "Have the very institutions we established to redeem errant citizens been turned into factories for hatred and violence?"
.
Other than locking up criminals whose freedom will be a menace to society and to serve as a deterrent, jail benefits no one. The state incurs huge expenditure in the trials, maintaining the system, dealing with the consequences of jailing someone, the army of counsellors for the prisoners and their families, the welfare arrangements and the post-release monitoring.
.
The convicted suffer punishment in excess of the jail terms — destroyed careers or businesses, shattered and separated families, legal fees and exposure to the excesses of prison such as violent behaviour or temperament, sexual deviation, homosexual rape and molest, organised crime, racism and disease.
.
Prison separates them from the institutions that could help them change — family, friends, religious communities and meaningful work. The victims endure the trials, loss of time, the medical and legal costs and little compensation. Even the fines go to the state.
.
So, what are the alternatives? These lie in the principles of restitution and compensation. The UK's Telegraph reported in July last year about the country's exploration of "restorative justice" as an alternative to the court system to save time and money, ease prison over-crowding and reduce the rate of re-offending. It involves criminals apologising to their victims and making amends and reparations, either to the victim or to the wider community by repairing property, cleaning premises or removing graffiti.
.
The measure has been a feature of the youth justice system in the UK for several years — a study showed a 25 per cent drop in the level of re-offending.
.
In China, there was a case of a farmer who was caught for illegal logging and ordered to replant 30,000 trees, more than what he had cut down. Instead of being unproductive in prison, he was allowed to continue his vocation, redeem himself, restore the damage and pay back to society.
.
The advantage in such an approach was that the offenders would be more willing to confess and the victims more willing to come forward.
.
For people-scarce Singapore, a system that wastes lives and causes disruption ought to be reviewed.
.
The writer is a managing consultant with Integrative Learning Corp.
An alternative could be 'restorative justice', which involves offenders making direct amends
Silva Kandiah
[email protected]
Jail — for molesters, grandmothers who harbour illegals, a mother with a handicapped son and, in the United States, for those who videotape movies.
.
There is much debate about the length of the sentences, but the larger debate should be about whether the world's justice systems are relying too much on jail sentences.
.
It is sad that there was no alternative punishment for the mother who had to go to jail and be separated from her handicapped son.
.
The purpose of prison is for restraint, retribution and rehabilitation. The two former intents are mostly fulfilled, but the issue is whether there are more civilised and less wasteful alternatives. As for the rehabilitative goal, there is evidence to say that it has failed.
.
Even in Singapore, where the prison system is doing well by world standards, a study released by the research and statistics department of the Subordinate Courts showed that 58 per cent — or 33,167 of the 56,904 crimes committed in 2002 were by repeat offenders. It was a 10 per cent increase over 2001.
.
More worrying was the finding that repeat offenders were committing more than one crime, at an average of 2.3 crimes in 2002 compared to 1.7 in 2001.
.
Did prison stays make them worse?
.
In the US, the Plain Truth magazine reported that, despite being called correctional institutions, the prisons have become so overcrowded that "the American justice system has all it can do to house inmates while they serve their time. Seeking to reform inmates is no longer a priority in most facilities".
.
Also in the US, statistics indicate that many released prisoners return to crime — often worse ones — and become targets for recruitment by organised crime in and outside the prison system and by terrorist groups.
.
The Plain Truth asked: "Have the very institutions we established to redeem errant citizens been turned into factories for hatred and violence?"
.
Other than locking up criminals whose freedom will be a menace to society and to serve as a deterrent, jail benefits no one. The state incurs huge expenditure in the trials, maintaining the system, dealing with the consequences of jailing someone, the army of counsellors for the prisoners and their families, the welfare arrangements and the post-release monitoring.
.
The convicted suffer punishment in excess of the jail terms — destroyed careers or businesses, shattered and separated families, legal fees and exposure to the excesses of prison such as violent behaviour or temperament, sexual deviation, homosexual rape and molest, organised crime, racism and disease.
.
Prison separates them from the institutions that could help them change — family, friends, religious communities and meaningful work. The victims endure the trials, loss of time, the medical and legal costs and little compensation. Even the fines go to the state.
.
So, what are the alternatives? These lie in the principles of restitution and compensation. The UK's Telegraph reported in July last year about the country's exploration of "restorative justice" as an alternative to the court system to save time and money, ease prison over-crowding and reduce the rate of re-offending. It involves criminals apologising to their victims and making amends and reparations, either to the victim or to the wider community by repairing property, cleaning premises or removing graffiti.
.
The measure has been a feature of the youth justice system in the UK for several years — a study showed a 25 per cent drop in the level of re-offending.
.
In China, there was a case of a farmer who was caught for illegal logging and ordered to replant 30,000 trees, more than what he had cut down. Instead of being unproductive in prison, he was allowed to continue his vocation, redeem himself, restore the damage and pay back to society.
.
The advantage in such an approach was that the offenders would be more willing to confess and the victims more willing to come forward.
.
For people-scarce Singapore, a system that wastes lives and causes disruption ought to be reviewed.
.
The writer is a managing consultant with Integrative Learning Corp. An alternative could be 'restorative justice', which involves offenders making direct amends
Silva Kandiah
[email protected]
Jail — for molesters, grandmothers who harbour illegals, a mother with a handicapped son and, in the United States, for those who videotape movies.
.
There is much debate about the length of the sentences, but the larger debate should be about whether the world's justice systems are relying too much on jail sentences.
.
It is sad that there was no alternative punishment for the mother who had to go to jail and be separated from her handicapped son.
.
The purpose of prison is for restraint, retribution and rehabilitation. The two former intents are mostly fulfilled, but the issue is whether there are more civilised and less wasteful alternatives. As for the rehabilitative goal, there is evidence to say that it has failed.
.
Even in Singapore, where the prison system is doing well by world standards, a study released by the research and statistics department of the Subordinate Courts showed that 58 per cent — or 33,167 of the 56,904 crimes committed in 2002 were by repeat offenders. It was a 10 per cent increase over 2001.
.
More worrying was the finding that repeat offenders were committing more than one crime, at an average of 2.3 crimes in 2002 compared to 1.7 in 2001.
.
Did prison stays make them worse?
.
In the US, the Plain Truth magazine reported that, despite being called correctional institutions, the prisons have become so overcrowded that "the American justice system has all it can do to house inmates while they serve their time. Seeking to reform inmates is no longer a priority in most facilities".
.
Also in the US, statistics indicate that many released prisoners return to crime — often worse ones — and become targets for recruitment by organised crime in and outside the prison system and by terrorist groups.
.
The Plain Truth asked: "Have the very institutions we established to redeem errant citizens been turned into factories for hatred and violence?"
.
Other than locking up criminals whose freedom will be a menace to society and to serve as a deterrent, jail benefits no one. The state incurs huge expenditure in the trials, maintaining the system, dealing with the consequences of jailing someone, the army of counsellors for the prisoners and their families, the welfare arrangements and the post-release monitoring.
.
The convicted suffer punishment in excess of the jail terms — destroyed careers or businesses, shattered and separated families, legal fees and exposure to the excesses of prison such as violent behaviour or temperament, sexual deviation, homosexual rape and molest, organised crime, racism and disease.
.
Prison separates them from the institutions that could help them change — family, friends, religious communities and meaningful work. The victims endure the trials, loss of time, the medical and legal costs and little compensation. Even the fines go to the state.
.
So, what are the alternatives? These lie in the principles of restitution and compensation. The UK's Telegraph reported in July last year about the country's exploration of "restorative justice" as an alternative to the court system to save time and money, ease prison over-crowding and reduce the rate of re-offending. It involves criminals apologising to their victims and making amends and reparations, either to the victim or to the wider community by repairing property, cleaning premises or removing graffiti.
.
The measure has been a feature of the youth justice system in the UK for several years — a study showed a 25 per cent drop in the level of re-offending.
.
In China, there was a case of a farmer who was caught for illegal logging and ordered to replant 30,000 trees, more than what he had cut down. Instead of being unproductive in prison, he was allowed to continue his vocation, redeem himself, restore the damage and pay back to society.
.
The advantage in such an approach was that the offenders would be more willing to confess and the victims more willing to come forward.
.
For people-scarce Singapore, a system that wastes lives and causes disruption ought to be reviewed.
.
The writer is a managing consultant with Integrative Learning Corp. An alternative could be 'restorative justice', which involves offenders making direct amends
Silva Kandiah
[email protected]
Jail — for molesters, grandmothers who harbour illegals, a mother with a handicapped son and, in the United States, for those who videotape movies.
.
There is much debate about the length of the sentences, but the larger debate should be about whether the world's justice systems are relying too much on jail sentences.
.
It is sad that there was no alternative punishment for the mother who had to go to jail and be separated from her handicapped son.
.
The purpose of prison is for restraint, retribution and rehabilitation. The two former intents are mostly fulfilled, but the issue is whether there are more civilised and less wasteful alternatives. As for the rehabilitative goal, there is evidence to say that it has failed.
.
Even in Singapore, where the prison system is doing well by world standards, a study released by the research and statistics department of the Subordinate Courts showed that 58 per cent — or 33,167 of the 56,904 crimes committed in 2002 were by repeat offenders. It was a 10 per cent increase over 2001.
.
More worrying was the finding that repeat offenders were committing more than one crime, at an average of 2.3 crimes in 2002 compared to 1.7 in 2001.
.
Did prison stays make them worse?
.
In the US, the Plain Truth magazine reported that, despite being called correctional institutions, the prisons have become so overcrowded that "the American justice system has all it can do to house inmates while they serve their time. Seeking to reform inmates is no longer a priority in most facilities".
.
Also in the US, statistics indicate that many released prisoners return to crime — often worse ones — and become targets for recruitment by organised crime in and outside the prison system and by terrorist groups.
.
The Plain Truth asked: "Have the very institutions we established to redeem errant citizens been turned into factories for hatred and violence?"
.
Other than locking up criminals whose freedom will be a menace to society and to serve as a deterrent, jail benefits no one. The state incurs huge expenditure in the trials, maintaining the system, dealing with the consequences of jailing someone, the army of counsellors for the prisoners and their families, the welfare arrangements and the post-release monitoring.
.
The convicted suffer punishment in excess of the jail terms — destroyed careers or businesses, shattered and separated families, legal fees and exposure to the excesses of prison such as violent behaviour or temperament, sexual deviation, homosexual rape and molest, organised crime, racism and disease.
.
Prison separates them from the institutions that could help them change — family, friends, religious communities and meaningful work. The victims endure the trials, loss of time, the medical and legal costs and little compensation. Even the fines go to the state.
.
So, what are the alternatives? These lie in the principles of restitution and compensation. The UK's Telegraph reported in July last year about the country's exploration of "restorative justice" as an alternative to the court system to save time and money, ease prison over-crowding and reduce the rate of re-offending. It involves criminals apologising to their victims and making amends and reparations, either to the victim or to the wider community by repairing property, cleaning premises or removing graffiti.
.
The measure has been a feature of the youth justice system in the UK for several years — a study showed a 25 per cent drop in the level of re-offending.
.
In China, there was a case of a farmer who was caught for illegal logging and ordered to replant 30,000 trees, more than what he had cut down. Instead of being unproductive in prison, he was allowed to continue his vocation, redeem himself, restore the damage and pay back to society.
.
The advantage in such an approach was that the offenders would be more willing to confess and the victims more willing to come forward.
.
For people-scarce Singapore, a system that wastes lives and causes disruption ought to be reviewed.
.
The writer is a managing consultant with Integrative Learning Corp.
(TODAY's articles are much more objective than the Straits Times. ST tends to praise govt officials too much.)
the pikamaster
P.S.: btw "gracious osciety" means a society that is forgiving and accepting of others' mistakes and aims toward reformation instead of punnishment, which is what Singapore is definitely NOT.
oh, n i dun watch Hollywood TV trials since i seldom get to watch TV Drama. Is tick to Sci-fi shows. so there! -
CX,
I happen to know that most presidents are PAP members, including Mr Nathan. The only non-PAP President was Mr Ong Teng Cheong and he had ALOT of problems even obtaining the defence information of Singapore. And i also know that PAP members are "encoursged" to toe the party line. Before parliamentary sittings, the MPs have a meeting of sorts to understand the new laws that are going to be passed.
the non-brainwashed pikamaster -
non-brainwashed pikamaster?Originally posted by pikamaster:CX,
I happen to know that most presidents are PAP members, including Mr Nathan. The only non-PAP President was Mr Ong Teng Cheong and he had ALOT of problems even obtaining the defence information of Singapore. And i also know that PAP members are "encoursged" to toe the party line. Before parliamentary sittings, the MPs have a meeting of sorts to understand the new laws that are going to be passed.
the non-brainwashed pikamaster -
well... maybe u have double post the readers comment in the same reply, making it unnecessary long... can u edit it so it can be posted on the main section of the thread ?
The examples quoted by Silva Kandiah, to be frank, can only worked for criminal acts of little consequences. In other words they r petty crimes. It cannot work for criminal acts such as murder, drug trafficking etc. Let me give an example. Imagine u r an accountant for a large firm. Somewhere in your course of work, u get to have a chance to embezzle a few million dollars to your account. If the penalty of embezzlement of funds is just doing charity work at an ophanage for the rest of your life, heck I will risk forgery to get the money. Same for kidnapping too. If the penalty for kidnapping is just cleaning up grafiti at the void deck, I will do it since if I don't get caught, I will still end up with a lot of money. It will be the same for armed robbery, drug trafficking etc. Commiting crime will then be like a gamble where the winning is great and I can afford to lose. Very soon singapore will becomes a lawless state.
BTW singapore has some restitution and compensation measures in place too. For molesters, it is a compoundable offence (something wrong with spelling). Meaning if u can make the victim forgive u, she can close the case there and then. Of course to make her forgive u, u probably have done some form of compensation and restitution. There r also a lot of other compoundable offence like slander or assault too.
Singapore is also famous for CWO, or Corrective Work Order. In fact it is the other countries tat had followed singapore example and implement it as a punishment for petty offence like littering and spitting. Singapore also allowed insane people to be force to mental Hospital instead of spending time at jail too.
Although jailing may seems to be harsh to u, it is better than cutting off your hands or gourging out your eyes. Wat other punishment do u suggest tat will serve as a deterent for people not to commit offence ? The punishment must be harsh enough for hard core adults to be afraid, otherwise it will serve no purpose. Just doing social service make hard core criminals laugh and commit crimes as often as possible.
Just a joke about doing public service. Let say there is no jail nor death sentence. Mr A commit a crime and is ordered to do community service. Mr A don't care and refuse to do the community service, wat is the police and court going to do ? Tell him to serve more time doing community services ??? Mr A just can just refuse to do any community service and the Gov can do nothing to him.
Anyway my interpretation of gracious society is tat they r courteous and have integrity. They should not skip queue, pig themselves at buffet, look down on other nationalities and keep a lost wallet for themselves. Remember there r many different kind of people in the world. If u r too "gracious", people will take advantage of u. If we r forgiving to a stage where drug trafficker only need to clean up parks, then very soon we will see singapore be the capital of drug activity in the region.
BTW... I thought Nathan is the head of DSO or some ambassador before his office of president while Ong Teng Cheong is the Minister of Transport ? DSO, police and other step board is not equal to PAP, otherwise by your definition 1/2 of singaporean r PAP.