CJ Yong ups Pandiaraj & Balakrishnan sentence

Gedanken SG

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.

Gedanken SG

Ehhh, Lordz, it's not just the local mentality. I've yet to come across a population that pays more attention to the spirit of the law than to the letter of the law - it's a perfectly natural response to having to live under laws.

However, one would imagine that politicians running a country would be aware of this tendency and be circumspect in their actions, instead of providing knee-jerk reactions to satisfy a bloodthirsty public.

Nelstar SG

That's why stupid people should be killed during birth. Any babies with low IQ should be strangled to death. iveco? Certainly qualifies this instance.

Paedophiles should not be tolerated at all cost. Vermin of society. I'm not accusing anyone am I?

Laughing

PatrickLTH SG

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!

LazerLordz SG

I get what you mean..but if we were to explore the reasons behind the political failure here..you and I would drift too close to the OSA if you get my drift.

Sigh.

Nelstar SG

Appeals are discouraged to prevent unnecessary abuse of the system. Having an increase in sentence furthers emphasize this issue.

But then again... matters of SAF.. hush hush la..

Laughing

PatrickLTH SG

I do not have CJ Yongs 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.

Nelstar SG

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?

Laughing

k4korny SG

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.

Nelstar SG

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.

Laughing

LazerLordz SG

You can never hush a controversy.But in this case, let the 2SG RIP okay? Sad

Gedanken SG

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?

Nelstar SG

You know experience may be important, but the ability to staunchy defend laws, and ability to express straightforward and acceptable opinions are important...

That's why new blood sometimes is more desired for higher positions because of their drive.

Wink

LazerLordz SG

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?

Nelstar SG

Sure. Wink

LazerLordz SG

Topic closed.

Gedanken SG

Or maybe it's because the defendants appealing feel that they have been found guilty of something they are not guilty of.

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".

« Previous Page