In memory of Shanmugam Murugesu

Meat Pao SG

Hello Lazerlords.....

I dont understand ur point about the legislature and the judiciary...

All laws are made by the legislature....all sentencing are carried out by the courts.....the judiciary....correct? In most countries in the world, this is how the system works, correct?

So... , what is the difference with this law? With the death penalty?

If the legislative body drafted and passed a law.....and then it become a law......and the judiciary act on it.....what is wrong with that?

The legislature is overstepping its boundary? It would create unjustice? Why would u say that?

I think the parliament would really overstep its boundary, if, one day an MP sit on a judge's chair, and then deliver a verdict. That would clearly be fitting the scenario and the image that u paint.

But, if an MP pass a draft, in the parliament, if the parliament make a new law, and then a real judge sitting on a judge chair deliver a verdict, in accordance with that law, there is nothing wrong at all.

Judges dont make laws.....it is the legislators....and legislators dont deliver verdicts....it is the judges.....it has never been confused, and there is no issue here at all.

It's not the death penalty only...many other laws are also made by legislators, and they stipulate the minimum and maximum punishment, and then the judges, they in court, will try to find, whether a person is guilty or not, should be freed or not, or if guilty, what is the suitable punishment in accordance with the law passed by the legislature.

There is no issue here at all.

Meat Pao.

fatslob SG

Alcohol and cigarettes are not banned simply because they have been too deeply entrenched in people's lifestyles. Case it point was the 'prohibition' fiasco back in the 30's. Marijuana, on the other hand, was and still is, exclusive to fringe elements of society in most parts of the world; banning it can also be viewed as a way to prevent it from becoming a mainstream problem.

Another possible reason for grouping marijuana with other hard drugs is that of the source. The draconian laws are aimed at preventing drug cartels and their middlemen from getting a foothold and turning Singapore into a transit hub for international narcotics; this is a problem much different from USA, which is more of a destination for drugs. I would venture a guess that Marijuana trafficking is done by the same groups or affiliations responsible for heroin and other nasties, and therefore the laws enforced are the same. They are targetting traffickers, not the drugs itself.

I see such harsh laws as a result, albeit indirectly, of Singapore's mainly Chinese populace. Legalism, whereby penalties are disproportionately greater than the actual 'crime' has always been acceptable if they are deemed to be for the greater good.

snobbish SG

There was another indian guy sentenced to hang some yr ago. The trial was full of question marks and unjust. Yet, when his lawyer ask the judge:if a man is innocent, will he still be hung just for procedure purposes??
The judge:Yes.

Read the local book:Hung at Dawn ..written by the above lawyer Wink
**The lawyer M Ravi is the lawyer also for Shanmugam Murugesu.

The book talks about the 3 cases, Vignes Mourthi (above case,shanmugan and Ngyuen Van Tuong.

fatslob SG

Now THAT, if true, is an atrocious act. TS should have picked on that case instead... but i shall reserve my own judgement until i know the facts.

Meat Pao SG

This kinda thing is hard to say......those judges, they have their own understanding of what law is...

For instance, many judges...many laws...in the world....are not retroactive....because they dont want to threaten the legal certainty.....

For laymen like us....it can be hard to understand....how can some people commit crimes, but, let's say it was 10 years ago and at that time there was no specific law which covered it, but now there is.......how can that criminal now be let go....where is the justice in it...?

But many judges will say.....yes...cannot....cannot retroactive...

So....it's hard for us laymen to say.....how can that judge say 'Hang for procedure' ......seem so cold.....but what is exactly the reasoning and the background for that? That's what we need to know before we jump to conclusions....

Meat Pao.

kawasaki2 SG

Yes, and that is something I love to see here.

5 stars in a circle represents the devil. Wonder if anyone heard of this saying.

snobbish SG

the book:
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleravibookreview.html

exact words:
Is he still maintaining that an innocent man can be hanged because of procedure?
Yes, the answer is yes.

kawasaki2 SG

IT IS dead.
Civil Servants have no EQ at all. Agree?

And you know that fat indian guy in the Istana once worked for the Japanese during World War II in Singapore. Don't you?

Because, when you say 'we are all human beings', maybe it will work in reminding the guys at the top about what's below them.

It is situations like this in which we need to be reminded of who we truly are.

During World War II, Nathan met Urmila, his future wife. Through the gift of an English-Japanese dictionary, he gained an understanding of the Japanese language which landed him the position of translator, then interpreter and finally a post linked to a top official in the Japanese civilian police.

[/quote]

LazerLordz SG

Yes there is.

There is a difference between having a maximum and minimum punishment on the books, and having a compulsory punishment on the books.

The latter takes the right of judicial discretion out of the judge's hands, and in the face of mitigating evidence, the judge is HELPLESS to sentence otherwise, especially so if the law states that intent does not matter, and mere possession already counts as guilt.

This opens up a can of worms because by association, Parliament has already indirectly judged a man guilty before a trial can take place.

It is one thing to mistakenly jail a man, it is another to kill another man for a harsher crime than he committed, in the trained eyes of the judge, where procedure and paperwork says he must hang.

If you can handle that kind of blood on your hands, by all means, carry on. For me and many others, we prefer to err on the side of caution.

Meat Pao SG

No...thats what u totally neglected something....

The judge can find whether an evidence is valid or not.....whether a witness testimony is valid or not....ultimately whether a person is guilty or not.....then, only when someone is found guilty, the judge is giving a verdict in accordance with the law.

Where is the fault in that? Nothing.

You think the judge has less power because of the compulsory punishment?

Why?

Let's say another crime....with the stated punishment of 5 to 10 years.....

Can the judge...find someone guilty....and then sentence him 4 years?

No? So why not u say, in ALL CASES, all judges have their hands tied, because the punishments are described by the legislature?

Do u see what I mean?

The legislature has its part to play, it has its role, and it is entirely within its right, to stipulate what the punishments are. And the judges have their roles to play, to lead the courtroom, to lead the court proceedings, and try to establish whether a person is guilty as charged or not.

There is no issue here at all......I think you are really getting mixed up on this....

Meat Pao.

LazerLordz SG

I am talking about the mandatory death penalty for drugs. Rolling Eyes In this case, the judges' hands are pretty much tied.

Go look up the legislation for yourself.

Meat Pao SG

I get what u mean....

Let's say for another case....another crime...the legislature says....punishment is 5 to 10 years...

A judge finds the person guilty, but alot of mitigating factors....can he give a sentence of 4 years? No.....at least is still 5 years.....if little mitigating factor, or none, then 10 years...

So the range is 5 to 10 years, and this is written by the legislature, as it should be. The judge will carry out the court proceedings......find evidences valid or not.....find witnesses testimonies valid or not....find a person ultimately guilty or not....then if found guilty, he must refer to what is written by the legislature.....5 to 10 years.

Same with this case....drug trafficking....he will carry out court proceedings....find evidences valid or not.....find witnesses testimonies valid or not....find a person ultimately guilty or not....if found guilty, he must refer to what is written by the legislature, minimum death penalty, maximum death penalty.

So....a judge must follow what is written......but in no way the judiciary is getting interfered by the legislature......unless if the legislature writes....for drug trafficking cases, judges can only convene 10 days of court, can only invalidate 1 evidence from prosecutor......things like that... But if there is no such limitations, a judge carrying out the court proceedings of a drug trafficking case, will act in the same way, like in any other cases......

Where is the less power? Why it is said that the legislature is not competent, or will lead to unjustice? Why is that relevant? An MP will not sit there on a judge chair. A real judge will sit there. But the judge dont decide the punishment for a crime, it is decided by the legislature, as with all other cases. The judge just lead the court proceedings, execute the law, follow the books. He is the implementer.

Where is the mix-up? None. Everybody is nicely in their place.

Here is the thing.....some societies think...some crimes are so abhorable....that they must be meted out with the capital punishment...thats why minimum death penalty...maximum death penalty....and a judge...will just follow this...as he should, as a judge...

Thats why....even if someone claim a mitigating factor....of wanting to pay his brother's debt....it still cannot be accepted as a valid reason....for jeopardizing the human rights of many other people....by distributing drugs......that is seen so abhorable....that no mitigating factor is acceptable.....no such thing as mitigating factor.....and thats the view of some societies....and thats reflected in the legislation...and thats carried out by courts....

Everything is in their place.

Meat Pao.

viciouskitty74 SG

Saddam Hussein was hanged. For allegations of assisnating 186 people.

maxtor SG

ok .. i m no lawyer but i'd try to explain things for anyone who doesnt understand. i'm currently studying in australia so i'm not sure if this applies to sg law, but since sg is considered a commonwealth country with english originated laws, i would expect the parliament setup as well as the judiciary setup to be somewhat similar to that of australia's. If i am incorrect, let me know.

It is true that Parliament makes law. Judges interpret law. Due to the fact that courtroom time is very precious, sometimes judges have to make assumptions about the law cos it is impossible for laws to fit every case perfectly. ( Rightfully, they can consult Parliament if they are not clear on a certain law) Therefore, it can be said that judges 'make' law as well.

In every case, there's this part called the 'ratio decidendi'. That's the part the judge has to follow. e.g. previous cases of people being convicted of smuggling drugs faced the death penalty, and that particular case was very similar to the one being heard. The judge hence, HAS to follow the previous case ruling. He is not allowed to make his own decisions UNLESS the decision came from a lower court.

However, because there are SO MANY cases heard, it is physically impossible for the judge to follow every ruling. It is therefore, the lawyer's duty to point out to the judge previous cases which bore significant rulings to support the lawyer's cause. Clearly, the judge needs to do his own research as well. But lawyers are the one who point out to the judge previous ratio decidendi decisions which support their arguments.

maxtor SG

Another point I want to highlight. There IS a difference betwen justice and morality. Justice is what the law says, and morality is what you think is right.

TS was arguing morality. Alot of people who didn't share her opinon were arguing justice.

Clearly, justice prevails over morality due to the fact that the law is penned down in black and white. Morality however, can vary from person to person.

caleb_chiang SG

Ai yo...

He break the law and should be punished accordingly. Who ask him to be a smart alex and try to test the system???

Although I admit that the law would be a failure if the punished was innocent in the first place.

Just like you stay in hotel, they also got certain rules like keeping the carpet clean. Failure to do so and leaving unremovable stain would eventually bring a big bill to yourself...

Before you enter into Singapore, you are notify about certain laws and penalty... and yet, he chose to disobey. It sounded like he chose to die if he was discovered unluckily... Wink

maxtor SG

dinky, why would the alcohol and cigarettes argument not be valid? both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all harmful. cigarettes and marijuana even have similar methods of consumption.

I think Laserlordz brought up a very good point about the legalising of drugs. (though he didn't mean it in that context!!)

has anyone ever considered the fact that part of the reason drugs are so highly prized in singapore is due to economics? Supply and demand. The fact that people have an incentive to smuggle drugs into singapore is because no one wants to do it, and therefore the demand is very high for both drugs, and smugglers.

what if we were to legalise marijuana? That takes the edge off the glamour factor, and drugs like marijuana will become like cigarettes. Legal but harmful. Plus, the government could impose a tax on marijuana sales, and earn revenues from it.

Of course there will be the argument of people suffering from the aftermath of the legalisation of drugs. But if our government finds it economically viable, you think they won't do it? If they can bring a casino, sorry, 2 casinos into singapore, they can pretty much do anything. It's all about the money, isn't it?

oxford mushroom SG

You should read up on the legal process in Singapore. The death penalty is only applied when the evidence is overwhelming and the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In that situation, a mandatory death penalty provides certainty and consistency in sentencing. Rolling Eyes

oxford mushroom SG

Legalization of cannabis use for medical reasons has been proposed but so far not accepted both in the US and the UK. The evidence for the use of cannabis in therapy still awaits medical trials. In any case, that argument is a red herring. We have no issue with the legal use of morphine in medical treatment either.

The crux of the matter is that whilst trafficking in an illegal substance is against the laws of the land, should you be advocating that citizens blatantly act against the law? It's probably the effects of cannabis.

Pitot SG

The death penalty should be here to stay.

« Previous Page Next Page »