This case is very different from the one in which a foreign diplomat mowed down some pedestrians.
Apart from the nature of the offences, the authorities have taken the trouble of charging 48 men (so far) with breaking the law. The cases have proceeded too far to sweep under the carpet, and I suspect that the judges are facing a real quandary in how to deal with the men.
To jail so many for an offence in which there was no criminal intent sounds ridiculous. And yet, following past practice, prison sentences were meted out for similar offences.
To jail, or not to jail…… that is the question!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
callmebad
heard that beyond these 44 guys, they’re going to charge some more people,
where do you have so much place to put so many men in prison at one go ?
most probably is the police will attach a kind of chain on those guys’ legs and ask them either to report to police everyday at certain times and not to leave house or to be at home by certain time - some kind of imposed curfew
if they break these curfews, their ‘chain’ will trigger an alarm at the police station
their kind of offense does not make them to be ‘very dangerous’ to the society
feel sorry for them, some of them are very young, they have no more future in Singapore
Tagging is not imposed by the judiciary but it is a decision of the prisons personnel. Also, so far, tagging is only used for those who have completed the major part of their prison sentences, never for the whole sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
onlysickoshere
not just jail time, their butt will be barcoded too.
Nope. Caning is NOT part of the possible sentencing. A jail term, probably not exceeding 9 months, going by previous cases. Another option is a fine. Or both prison and fine.
Great post, AustinPowers! I couldn’t have said it better!
One minor comment – rather than raising the age of consent from 16 to 18, which is impracticable since young people are maturing earlier these days, it may be better to just designate the age of consent to remain at 16, whether for non-commercial, or for commercial sex.
Read
this!
The problem is that in the past, under more or less similar circumstances, quite a few have been handed stiff prison sentences. How are these precedents to be justified? (In all likelihood, if the 48 men are not given prison sentences, the past cases will just be swept under the carpet. And a new legal precedent would have been set.)
In fact the law was just recently changed to include Section 376B under which the men were charged.
Previous to 2008, there was no such law.
In trying to pander to Western society standards, we have gone a step backwards!
When I started this thread, I never suspected that this issue of underaged sex is going to be such an explosive one!
The numbers do make a great difference and it is because of the numbers that the public is now conscious that there is something problematic not just about Section 376B, but how our judges have chosen to interpret this law.
Because of the public outcry concerning the case (for instance, the results of a CNA poll indicate public unhappiness about the way things have developed), the judges may be forced to think carefully before sending all the men to jail. Who knows, they may even be more open-minded about hearing the arguments put forward by the defence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justforfun90
i doubt so though…it might have been a possibility if no one was sentenced yet…but with the ex-teacher now sentenced, it is unlikely the judge will change the way he is going to handle this case….
as far as im aware….public opinion in SG is hardly worth anything even if it meant more than 90% were upset with the way things were handled….
P.S. the panel on that day were just spewing P.C. replies….so infuriating to watch -.-!!
Truth is sometimes stranger the fiction, and sometimes, we should expect the unexpected.
In any case, the whole thing is unfolding right now, and we shall have to wait and see the outcome.
The arguments of the various defence lawyers may have an important bearing on the outcomes of the cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thrive
Didn’t she cheat to get what she wanted? Isn’t cheating a crime?
In the context of the law, she was a minor at the time. So even if she had lied about her age, no, she cannot be persecuted for telling lies.
I notice that many people want to hold the girl responsible for putting the men in trouble. Actually however it is the law, and how the law is being interpreted, that is causing all the trouble.
People should demand either that the law be repealed, or else advocate a more lenient interpretation which allows for an acquittal or a fine if the prosecution
cannot
prove that the men had sex with the girl
KNOWING THAT SHE WAS UNDERAGED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dander
Are you saying that minors can’t be prosecuted?
Yes, that is what I am saying, in the context of this law.
On the other hand, in the general context, when minors breach the law, such as when young persons rob or commit acts of violence, they may be put on trial and punished.