CJ Yong ups Pandiaraj & Balakrishnan sentence
-
Appeals are discouraged to prevent unnecessary abuse of the system. Having an increase in sentence furthers emphasize this issue.Originally posted by PatrickLTH:We must learn that appeal against sentence is an offender right.
It is also the duty of the CJ to review the grounds and adequacy of the sentences, ie the accused already found guilty, the sentence passed by the trial judge could stay, or could be up or down.
If all appeal must result in stay of sentence or reduce in sentence, every criminal will appeal. CJ will be very very busy then.
We must learn that appeal can result in higher, lower or stay in sentence.
So do think very very carefully if you contemplate to appeal against sentencing!
But then again... matters of SAF.. hush hush la..
-
I do not have CJ YongÂ’s track records.Originally posted by Gedanken:All things being equal, it may be a fair point. However, take a look at Yong's track record of turning down appeals and instead increasing sentences, and you'll see that his policy is to actively discourage appeals by promising to make things worse for the defendant.
From the cases that I came across in the newspapers, I think CJ is most fair (doing a good job) and is good that we have him in Singapore.
I do not feel that CJ policy is to actively discourage appeals by promising to make things worse for the defendant. CJ does occasionally reduce sentence, and even sent case back to the trial judge (very bad for the judge).
Another thing, my perception of fairness may be different to yours or other forumates. I agree I do hear many people have the same sentiment as expressed by you. -
Let me just say...
such incidents do not appear in Old Lee's era... or were easily extinguished...
Then we see a so-called conflict of interest between two agency and a so-called closed-door slamming at the two officers.
One agency had to protect their name. The other has to tone down the issue, but the media and attraction states otherwise.
So the unlucky scapegoats suffers when both agencies has already told the scapegoats to hush hush la. Then again, you know, idiots don't know that sometimes by making unnecessary noise, they will suffer, they kena lor. They go complain, then the other agency simply increase the levy on them, this time no pang-chance lor.
If they hush-hush hor, their own agency might do something for them under table, but they kuku, go ruffle feathers sure kena poke la.
Hai, this type of story, all the kopitiam uncle can give u the account lor. Whether they deserved it or not, not my business lor, aku not involved, not my daiji, i never see the inside thing lor. How to say whether right or wrong? -
rem that case where the whole family was sent to jail over beating up the wife's lover.. and only the son appealed? The appeal was successful mah. Dun be too harsh to criticise the system just based on a single case.Originally posted by dragg:i find it funny too.
its like warning people against appealing.
what is the point then? maybe as well remove it from out system.
(.. and IMO, in that case, CJ Yung was being very very lenient. He would have thrown out other similar cases.)
When you appeal, you must have sufficient evidence that the judgment was flawed. I think in this case, the judgement was very fair. One is a conducting officer, the other was dunking the guy, and the poor fella died under their nose. The initial 3 mths jail is already very lenient.. Who ask them to kar cheng zhor to appeal? By appealing, it shows no remorse towards their actions. They fully deserve it. -
They want to hush hush but some ppl cannot dont hush hush lor.Originally posted by k4korny:rem that case where the whole family was sent to jail over beating up the wife's lover.. and only the son appealed? The appeal was successful mah. Dun be too harsh to criticise the system just based on a single case.
(.. and IMO, in that case, CJ Yung was being very very lenient. He would have thrown out other similar cases.)
When you appeal, you must have sufficient evidence that the judgment was flawed. I think in this case, the judgement was very fair. One is a conducting officer, the other was dunking the guy, and the poor fella died under their nose. The initial 3 mths jail is already very lenient.. Who ask them to kar cheng zhor to appeal? By appealing, it shows no remorse towards their actions. They fully deserve it.
If forumites suddenly notice I become uncontactable thru phone hor... you all know la, they oso want me to hush leh. -
You can never hush a controversy.But in this case, let the 2SG RIP okay?Originally posted by Nelstar:They want to hush hush but some ppl cannot dont hush hush lor.
If forumites suddenly notice I become uncontactable thru phone hor... you all know la, they oso want me to hush leh. 
-
Well, you're entitled to opinion, of course. I just shudder at the thought of how he can do things like changing a $1000 fine to a jail term. Let's not even go into the JBJ thing - too touchy.Originally posted by PatrickLTH:I do not have CJ YongÂ’s track records.
From the cases that I came across in the newspapers, I think CJ is most fair (doing a good job) and is good that we have him in Singapore.
I do not feel that CJ policy is to actively discourage appeals by promising to make things worse for the defendant. CJ does occasionally reduce sentence, and even sent case back to the trial judge (very bad for the judge).
Another thing, my perception of fairness may be different to yours or other forumates. I agree I do hear many people have the same sentiment as expressed by you.
I do, however, find it interesting that prior to being appointed to the bench, the CJ spent 20 years as an administrator in SingTel and SIA instead of practicing law. You would think that a Chief Justice would be selected for his experience in the practice of law, wouldn't you? -
You know experience may be important, but the ability to staunchy defend laws, and ability to express straightforward and acceptable opinions are important...Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, you're entitled to opinion, of course. I just shudder at the thought of how he can do things like changing a $1000 fine to a jail term. Let's not even go into the JBJ thing - too touchy.
I do, however, find it interesting that prior to being appointed to the bench, the CJ spent 20 years as an administrator in SingTel and SIA instead of practicing law. You would think that a Chief Justice would be selected for his experience in the practice of law, wouldn't you?
That's why new blood sometimes is more desired for higher positions because of their drive.
-
Says a lot doesn't it.Of course, we are all free to draw our own conclusions.Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, you're entitled to opinion, of course. I just shudder at the thought of how he can do things like changing a $1000 fine to a jail term. Let's not even go into the JBJ thing - too touchy.
I do, however, find it interesting that prior to being appointed to the bench, the CJ spent 20 years as an administrator in SingTel and SIA instead of practicing law. You would think that a Chief Justice would be selected for his experience in the practice of law, wouldn't you?
I'm locking this thread because this issue has been debated to bits time and time again.The truth will never die in the hearts of those who know it.So let the matter rest and let the 2SG RIP.
PM me if you feel otherwise.Ged?Nellie? -
Sure.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Says a lot doesn't it.Of course, we are all free to draw our own conclusions.
I'm locking this thread because this issue has been debated to bits time and time again.The truth will never die in the hearts of those who know it.So let the matter rest and let the 2SG RIP.
PM me if you feel otherwise.Ged?Nellie? -
Topic closed.
-
Or maybe it's because the defendants appealing feel that they have been found guilty of something they are not guilty of.Originally posted by k4korny:By appealing, it shows no remorse towards their actions. They fully deserve it.
Just think about this - they already knew they ran the risk of having their sentences increased, but they decided to appeal anyway. If you were in their position and knew you were wrong, would you take that risk, or take the 3-month sentence and be thankful it was not longer? Any reasonable man would take the latter option, IF he was in the wrong. On the flip side, appealing under those circumstances if you know you're not in the wrong is not an unreasonable course of action.
The only thing the outcome says is that there was insufficient evidence to prove any errors in the original trial. As Oliver Wendell Holmes so aptly defined the judge's task: "My job is to uphold the law, not do justice".