Why laymen cry foul
Received this long comment after I posted on, "What has the world become?
Take some time & read what this reader has to say...
Take some time & read what this reader has to say...
Straits Times Forum
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
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
Comments
January 09, 2008
DANGEROUS MOTORISTS
Don't just jail them, cane them too
I URGE the authorities to implement stiffer penalties for all dangerous motorists - those involved in drink driving, speeding, hit-and-run cases, driving without licenses or bullying.
The number of victims seriously injured and killed by these dangerous motorists has risen despite campaigns to educate and warn motorists.
I overheard a man drinking in a pub with his friends saying arrogantly that his 12 months in jail for drink driving was like a holiday camp.
I felt he would not be saying that if his 12 months of jail had been changed to 12 strokes of the cane.
Here are my recommendations for tackling these offences:
# Replace the jail term with caning as it will serve as an effective deterrent.
# Impose a minimum fine of $50,000. The authorities can use the money to set up a fund for the victims.
# Confiscate their vehicles and use the money from the sale of these vehicles for the fund.
# Have more spot checks and road blocks to spot and arrest such dangerous criminals.
# Impose a law to make these criminals teach, educate, remind and give warnings at schools and institutions, as well as appear on TV and in campaigns on the consequences of such dangerous behaviour.
# Remind motorists about dangers and the consequences, and highlight these recommended penalties on campaign banners to deter dangerous road behaviour and crime.
My recommendations may sound harsh. However, I believe they will deter these crimes in Singapore and make our roads safer for all.
I drink five days a week as I enjoy entertaining and networking. I enjoy drinking instead of driving because to me, driving in Singapore is a real pain in the neck and can be extremely dangerous.
I like to say that Singapore is a first-world country but, sadly, the mentality of motorists here, in general, is worse than what you may find in a third-world country.
I have many wishes for Singapore in this new year. However, number one on my list is that the authorities will do more and take action against dangerous motorists who have caused many injuries and deaths.
These criminals seriously jeopardise the reputation of Singapore as a safe country for all to work, live and play in.
Ace Kindred Cheong