Quote:
Originally Posted by
indubitable
What I meant was if it’s an offence to have sex with 16 year olds without gratification then many of us who bonked our college mates will be in trouble.
I think you are missing the point. It is NOT an offence for anyone to have sex with someone above 16 (without force being used), unless that someone is a sex worker. You can only have sex with sex workers who are 18 or older. But you are free to have sex with anyone above 16 if you can persuade them to do so.
The intent is to protect and prevent young people from becoming sex workers before they turn 18 by punishing anyone who deigns to patronise these “underaged” workers.
But the problem is that sometimes people who have sex with sex workers do not really know not their true age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zedex5
To paraphrase the dear PM:
People support this law because there are no protest outside parliament.
When there is sufficiently widespread unhappiness about any issue by the general populace, protests or no, all governments, including the Singapore government, will feel the pressure.
There was no protesting about the high salaries of ministers…. but the government felt pressured enough to convene a commission to look into the matter, resulting in the substantial cuts proposed.
Another similar case involving an underaged Viet sex worker – maybe even the same one!
Man jailed for commercial sex with underage girl
A man who had sex with an underage Vietnamese girl in return for a $150 payment was jailed for four months on Monday.
Han Yam Meng, 35, had admitted having commercial sex with the 17-year-old girl at Min Wah Hotel in Geylang on June 15 last year.
A district court heard that the senior technical engineer met the victim at a pub in Geylang Road on June 14.
While chatting, she told him that she was 19.
A member of the staff at the pub approached her and asked for her passport. She was told to leave as she was underage.
She then went to a coffeeshop where Han later approached her and asked again for her age. She said she was 18 and he took her word for it.
He then asked if she wanted to go to a hotel with him. She agreed. They checked into a room at Min Wah Hotel for sex.
They were subsequently arrested as they were leaving the hotel together.
He could have been jailed for up to seven years and fined for commercial sex with a person below 18 years old.
(The Straits Times Online, Breaking News, Jan 9th, 2012)
A much lighter sentence…. but why? Maybe the judge read this thread? Stranger things have happened. Considering that the girl lied about her age, both cases should not be punished with jail sentences but with fines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hakeem.abdurrah
how can that man know that the girl is underage?
Precisely… that’s why in such cases, when there is evidence that the girl lied about her age, a custodial sentence is hardly justified. It’s true that the man has broken the law and has to be punished. A fine would have been a more appropriate sentence.
But because of the nature of the offence, I doubt that many people will bother to show much interest in such cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enamour
Why can’t the girl get charged for lying??
Under ordinary circumstances, lying is not a chargeable offence – unless one lies under oath in a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stimsia
The joker is asking for it
If in doubt abstain, simple as that but he let little head take over big head
Got fiancee some more wonder fiancee can tahan
Face also in newspaper..how to face the world….
Humans are generally non-monogamous. The man has actually not done anything to be ashamed about. Did he hurt or attempt to hurt anyone? Did he rob or steal? Did he cause any harm or danger to the community? He may have committed an offence but did he really do anything morally wrong?
Doubtless, he will still feel ashamed for being caught, and his face splashed in the papers. That is society’s way of shaming him because society is still prudish in matters pertaining to sex.
It’s happened again…
Businessman jailed for sex with underage prostitute
SHE claimed to be 19 years old. But Peter Gerard Chang Liang Chieh suspected that the teenage prostitute was lying.
He asked to see her passport, but when she made an excuse, he went ahead and had sex with her anyway.
Yesterday, Chang, 43, was jailed for three months after the court heard that she was actually 16.
The bachelor, who runs his own computer business, met the Vietnamese teen in May last year. At the time, she was working as a freelance hostess at a bar in Joo Chiat.
She said she would charge him $100 for ‘short time sex’. When he asked her age, she told him she was 19.
They booked into a nearby hotel. She noticed that he looked tired and was sweating profusely. He was unable to have sex, but gave her $100 anyway.
They met again by chance at a coffee shop in Joo Chiat on May 25. In the taxi to her lodging house in Geylang, she again told him she was 19.
He asked for her passport, but she said she had given it to a friend to buy an air ticket. Chang did not pursue the matter, and they went on to have sex in her room.
He was caught after the police raided the lodging house.
Defence lawyer Jason Dendroff said that his client deserved leniency as the prostitute had not been truthful about her age.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Ramesh Ethan Ananda replied that the law expects mature men to be vigilant and restrained in order to protect young, vulnerable girls.
‘This explains why the defence of mistake as to age does not apply to accused persons who are above 21 years old,’ he added.
The court ordered that the girl’s name not be published.
In Singapore, it is illegal to have paid sex with anyone under the age of 18.
For having sex with an underage prostitute, Chang could have been jailed for up to seven years, fined up to $10,000, or both.
(The Straits Times, 10th Feb, 2012)
In this latest case, the sentence is even lighter…. three months. Again it involves a Vietnamese sex worker. Perhaps those who are fond of patronizing the Viets should be especially careful.
When comparing this case with the first one, wasn’t the punishment meted out in the latter manifestly excessive? How come very similar offences but vastly different sentences? Different judges, yes, but aren’t they guided by the same laws? Perhaps the offender in the first case mentioned in this thread should appeal. Would an appeal be justified? Does any one know? (I ask these questions out of curiousity and am no way related to any persons in any of the cases mentioned here.)
The scenario I foresaw has come home to roost.
In the recent crackdown against an online sex syndicate, many men were called up for questioning because some of the ladies who served them were below 18. But they were falsely represented as being above 18 by their agents. The law says it is the onus of the clients to ensure that the sex worker is above 18. Practically though, this presents some difficulties because the ladies do not normally show their passports to their clients. Maybe we should insist that they do from now on…
Six men charged with having sex with underaged sex workers
SINGAPORE: Six men have been charged with having sex with underage girls who are believed to be sex workers.
The six are: Seah Seng Kok, 59; Chan See Sean, 40; Low Kian Ann, 55; Justin Guo Zhijia, 24; Yee Yew Seng, 45; and Wee Lian Kee, 54.
They are accused of having sex with girls aged 16 and 17 in July 2011 and face a range of one to three charges each.
If convicted, they could be jailed up to seven years, fined or both.
Under the law, it is illegal to pay for sex with anyone under the age of 18.
[ChannelNewsAsia, 30th March 2012]
================================================== =======
True – the men have broken the law and have to pay the penalty. Still, the situation in this case is that the men seem to be victims rather than criminals. They were probably duped into assuming that the sex workers were 18 or older.
The fairest sentencing should be a small fine and nothing more than that. The real criminals are the pimps who procured these underaged sex workers.