As I used to be a practising lawyer once and a victim of crime
myself, AND one who still has a morbid interest in what goes on in
our courts, I have come to the conclusion that the reason our crime
rates are considerably lower than other countries is due to a few
contributing factors.
1. We have stringent laws (not unlike other ASEAN), and;
2. (more importantly) A police force that has the ability and
support to enforce those laws -
3. We're a tiny tiny country. It's much easier to govern a tiny
city state, than, say even a country the size of Malaysia (which is
still relatively small when compared to other nations)
Singapore has always taken a tough stance against crime. We're a
tiny nation, as far as possible, our policies have always been
aimed at making things work. We'll adopt best practices from all
over the world, and we make no apologies for doing so.
Contrary to popular belief - All our criminal laws are aimed at
trying to uncover the truth of what happened.
Sylvia Lim came up with some interesting proposals:-
Setting a maximum time limit beyond which an arrested person
must be given access to counsel in the course of police
investigations;
There really is no need for this. It
is extremely rare for the accused to be denied counsel for that
long a time. Even if the accused is denied access to counsel for a
considerable time, the counsel is always given sufficient time to
prepare a defence. The CPC is also clear on the rules governing the
acquiring of evidence and of what the police can or cannot release
to the defense lawyers.
I think one has to remember that if a guilty accused is given
access to counsel there is always a chance for him to destroy
evidence/warn accomplices etc. Inversely, if one is truly innocent,
the delay in getting access to counsel does not in any way
jeopardise his case.
This is an example of how our laws allow us to get to the truth of
matters.
Oral confessions to police should not be admissible;
Admissibility does not mean it cannot
be disputed and rejected.
Here's a typical situation - Uniformed officers arrive at a
shopping centre to arrest a shoplifter, called Bob. When the boys
in blue ask why he did that, Bob says that he just thought he
wouldn't get caught. They bring him back to the lock up. As he
waits for the Investigating officer to attend to him, the gears in
his head start turning and he crafts a plan to deny
everything.
When the IO finally sees him for his side of the story, Bob goes on
about how he was mistaken, that he did not mean to take the stuff
out of the shop, he was the victim of gung ho shop security
etc.
All other evidence all seem to support his contention that he is
innocent, he has no prior record, the security officers were indeed
the gung ho sort etc
At this point, Bob's simple answer to the arresting officers can be
used to show the guilt.
ยท Further facilitating remand inmates to assist their lawyers in
preparing their defences e.g. making phone calls to his lawyer,
family members and witnesses;
I don't think counsel has any
problems in this area. Actually, this is grounds for appeal if
indeed it has occured and hampered the defence.
If the presumptions against the accused in laws such as the
Misuse of Drugs Act are retained, the standard of proof required
from the accused be lowered e.g. to one of casting a reasonable
doubt.
Semantics. The moment a reasonble
doubt is cast, the scale is already tipped in favour of the accused
(i.e. on a balance of probability, the accused is to be
believed)
What about the DP?
Well, I think the results speak for itself.
