What has the world become?
Not so long ago, there was a robber who robbed 2 old women of their valuables.
He was caught & sentenced to 10yrs of jail & 3 whips of the cane.
(If I didn't rem the verdict wrongly)
He was caught & sentenced to 10yrs of jail & 3 whips of the cane.
(If I didn't rem the verdict wrongly)
Just b'coz he was armed @ the time of robbery.
And now, the verdict's finally out for a cabby...
And now, the verdict's finally out for a cabby...
Who knocked down a guy who had a bright future...
The young guy passed away on Mother's Day in 07...
The young guy passed away on Mother's Day in 07...
Can u imagine the hurt his mum felt on that dreadful day?
Yet, this cabby merely got a 1 yr sentence..
Just because his lawyer pleaded for him...
Yet, this cabby merely got a 1 yr sentence..
Just because his lawyer pleaded for him...
With the excuse that the cabby was old & in poor health..
Maybe his poor health is with his brain/thinking..
Did he even think twice before he step on the accelerator?
Was he even abit remorseful when he heard the news of the guy's departure?
So, being old gives you the right to be rash in taking away one's life?
Well, it may be true that even if he has served a heavier sentence..
The life of the guy would still be lost..
But, shouldn't one be reponsible for his own deeds?
A life is only worth 1 year of sentence?
While a human's valuables are worth 10 years?
Someone, pls enlighten me on this!
Maybe his poor health is with his brain/thinking..
Did he even think twice before he step on the accelerator?
Was he even abit remorseful when he heard the news of the guy's departure?
So, being old gives you the right to be rash in taking away one's life?
Well, it may be true that even if he has served a heavier sentence..
The life of the guy would still be lost..
But, shouldn't one be reponsible for his own deeds?
A life is only worth 1 year of sentence?
While a human's valuables are worth 10 years?
Someone, pls enlighten me on this!
Comments
December 21, 2007
Crime and punishment: Why laymen cry foul
I REFER to the letters on crime and the law in The Straits Times of Dec 19. From these, one can surmise one thing: laymen like us put a high value on human life and safety, whereas the law occasionally values property more than lives, and, at times, does not acknowledge certain acts as being seizable despite obvious harm perceived by the public.
This divergence of opinion results in the impression that punishment meted out does not commensurate with the crime, or that the law does not fully protect the public interest.
Take the case of the drunk driver who caused the death of a pedestrian ('11 weeks' jail hardly an appropriate sentence'). According to Section 66 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276), any person who causes the death of another by driving recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. The law has capped the sentence at five years, less than what one may receive for burglary. To a layperson, it does not make sense ('Are burglars worse than drink drivers?').
While the law describes it as a rash act and not intentional, one may argue that a person who drinks despite knowing that he will be driving later, has, in fact, consciously made the decision to endanger the lives of others on the road. Isn't that intent? Isn't that then culpable homicide should he subsequently kill someone?
It all boils down to the public's perception of the inconsistencies in the law and how much it values life. We do not take issue with the judge for he is bound by the limits set by the law.
While groups rallied to try and repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising gay sex, few have come out to question pressing issues that affect the majority of the public.
It is time that lawmakers look into these issues. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said: 'Our view, as a government, is we will go with society'. So, lawmakers, go with the society.
Zulkarnain Ab Hamid