In China, we know for a fact that common prisoners get executed so that their organs can be sold to the highest bidders. Do we actually need Yong’s organs so desperately to save some person similar in status to that CK Tangs man ?

If not, why the haste ? A human being’s life is at stake here and yet the impression that I get is that the Prosecutor is out to get the young man as if his organs are desperately needed ! Is this for real in Singapore ?

Granted that the rich and powerful can abuse the legal system. It happens, especially in Singapore.

However, that doesn’t mean judges should have no discretionary power. Otherwise, why would we need them? May as well just have DPPs and save a whole lot of money.

You said:
“True…’ first offence’ as in being caught for the first time. Not really doing it for the first time though.”

Now, here is where we have to exercise discretion, especially when we read the wonderful and utterly credible, internationally-renowned and completely professional reports from Singapore’s local media.

One can commit an offence if it comes to the attention of the police or the courts. So, yes. It was Yong’s first offence.

And one should not be clairvoyant and assume that he must have committed other offences prior.

Ahhh.. but you would say that he ran drugs six times before, referring again to our wonderful media reports.

True.

But…

If you recall, reading our wonderful media reports, that these six occasions were mentioned by Yong’s co-accused, who, wonderfully again, received 22 years sentence and not death.

Now, lets go back to the law, and the law says: A statement of guilt by a co-accused, in drug trafficking cases, can be used as evidence of guilt.

AH HA!!

Now, you get the picture.

The co-accused said Yong ran drugs on six other occasions – he said this in detention, obviously, and obviously again, must have struck a deal with the prosecution, else how did he end up getting 22 years while Yong is getting death.

So, coming full circle…

Did Yong really run drugs on six other occasions?

Honestly , looking at the questions and the fact that the police and prosecution had no evidence of this except the statement of Yong’s co-accused, one would really have to give Yong the benefit of the doubt and say yes, this was Yong’s very first offence.

But then this is a moot point, as far as the law is concerned.

Why?

Because even if it was his first offence, the law says that the judge has no right, no power, no room to take this into consideration.

So yes. Moot point, really.

Basically the system you’re advocating is known as the Civil Law System, which is the legal system in USA.

Singapore, being a Commonwealth country, follows the Common Law System, which is follows the rule of Precedence. A decision of a “higher” court is binding on the “lower court”.

There’re pros and cons to each system of course.

The Civil Law System is more flexible, and allows for more discretion on the part of judges, and the weight of mitigating factors (that you mentioned about VK earlier) will affect the outcome of the case more.

The Common Law System is more predictable, so people know what the punishment is for each crime, and there’s more stability in the legal system.

The downside of course, is that the Common Law System is more rigid, so there is less room for compassion. The Civil Law System might produce some absurd results, as each decision is based on the personal discretion of each judge, and the skill of each lawyer.

So if you’re faced against a really powerful (or expensive) lawyer, he might actually be able to bring about a heavier sentence on you.

The system that you propose has actually been criticized in the US because it favours the rich and powerful, who can afford the bloody expensive and good lawyers to fight their case.

there are grounds to appeal against the legally of the law other than just against a meted out sentence. in every democratic system with proclaimed fair elections, the three pillars of State made up of the Judiciary, the Legislative and the Executive are to ensure they do check and balances on one another, making sure there is separation of powers. though this does not seem to be much practiced in Sg, but that does not mean that our judiciary is absolved from delivering this function because we are protected by our constitution to have these three pillars of State checking on one another. it is common in other countries to see the judiciary taking up active roles in challenging the legislative on doubtful laws or questionable laws and there will be calls for reviews or reforms. that is in fact an extremely important role of the judiciary. in the book “the politicis of policy making in Sg” by prof ho khai leong, it states that the judges in Sg are seen to be performing much like technicians, delivering procedures according to technicalities where it should be otherwise.

so in this case, there are serious doubts about the law of Mandatory Death Sentence for Misuse of Drug cases as this is an automatic sentence which leaves no power to the judge to decide otherwise in view of mitigating circumstances. therefore, this law is highly questionable and flawed and we say this law is not legal, there is no legality in this law which has been meted out to Yong. Defence Counsel will appeal saying this law is unlawful and should not be applied. we will have to based on english case laws and international laws and pose questions like how come Sg having responded to the UDHR has not conformed to international standards, drug trafficking is not classified under henious crimes worldwide, etc etc. if the judiciary is convinced about the appeal and the denfence wins the appeal, then there will be a moratorium to the death penalty and all on death row convicted under this Act will have their execution stayed on until further review by the legislative branch.

True…’ first offence’ as in being caught for the first time. Not really doing it for the first time though.

Try this for size.

A judge, sitting in his esteemed chair, robed distinguishly, with his years of experience in law and in presiding over cases. Over the years, he’s learnt that each case is different, each circumstance leading to a crime is different. He knows, in his heart of hearts, that each criminal is different.

He knows the reasons why people commit crimes are different.

Today he presides over a young man, 19-years old. He hears the story of the young boy. He is sympathetic and is moved by the life circumstances of this young man who clearly was led astray by bad company and who comes from a poor, illiterate family.

The judge feels compassion, which is part of what justice is. He wants to punish the crime committed but he also knows the young man is not a hardened criminal. In fact, this is the young man’s first offence – ever.

This is the young man’s first offence ever in his entire life!

Yet, the judge, with a heavy heart, leans on forward from the bench and says:

“I am moved y your story and I believe you. I want to show compassion and show you mercy as I believe you are sincere in wanting to change. The guards in prison who guards you tell me so.

“But I am deeply sorry as though I am a human being and can feel for you, the law in this case treats me as a human machine – with power to only decide on one simple thing – whether you trafficked in drugs.

“And you have admitted that you trafficked in drugs.

“And so, I have to sent you to your death by hanging because I cannot do otherwise. I am not allowed to.

“I am sorry.”

Yet, the judge could also add this:

“However, in my judgement I shall say this for you: You do not deserve death but the law provides no alternative. It’s either death or freedom. Such is the law.

“But I recommend that when you make your clemency appeal to the president, I deeply, seriously and truly recommend that the President allows your clemency and commute your death sentence.”

Question:

Why has no judge made such recommendation in his judgement?

A comment posted on this blog: http://cavalierio.blogspot.com/2009/12/reflections-on-guillotine_07.html

Let me say, I prefer the death penalty to stay. There are simply some scums that need to be rid of in this world.

Cases like Yong should show the flexibility of mercy of laws. But yet it didnt. Our judical system has shown itself to be inflexible and cruel. It is detestable.

HOW IS IT THAT ONE CAN BE SENTENCED TO DEATH SO THAT CRIMES BY OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT OR WON’T BE COMMITTED?

Isn’t the law suppose to punish and only punish one for the crime that one has committed?

Isn’t punishment suppose to fit the crime?

HOW IS IT THAT ONE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR CRIMES ONE HAS NOT COMMITTED – which is what the deterrent argument is essentially saying???

Bollocks! Crap! Insane!

Utter hogwash this deterrent argument!

Incredible that people can agree with it so blindly.

And congratulations also to the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, for those who do not know. Sensible judgement.

The family and Yong breathes a little easier, for now at least.

Back to the argument and please allow me to just briefly touch on the point about deterrence. I have a huge problem with this argument, besides the fact – yes, FACT – that it is a false, unproved, irrational, emotional argument.

Yet here is one to consider:

The argument deterrence is saying that one must die for the crimes of others – crimes which are yet to be committed, or which will never be committed (or so the deterrence proponents hope).

Now, the question is:

Should one such as Yong Vui Kong pay for the crimes which are not committed?

Which part of the law says this is allowed?

Isn’t the law suppose to be about punishment for crimes which have been committed????

How is it that one can be sentenced to death so that crimes by other people are not or won’t be committed?

What nonsense!

Unless
(1) AG chamber withdraw the charge,
(2) Defense counsel M Ravi managed to find a way to show that mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional or non-compliance to international convention (which I’m not aware of),
(3) The president pardons Vui Kong, or
(4) The parliament amended the relevant law,
VK will still be hanged after Court of Appeal hears the case, because the law did not give the judges discretion to decide if VK should or should not be hanged.

It is only unfortunated the rule of law becomes such an @sshole…

but i wonder how come good people like mr chan and mr ravi still join them?

i think this may be due to the fact that sdp share same vision with them

and maybe they are the ones who really know the exact truth behind all the “negative news” which commom people like us never know.

salute to all the people who has sacrific so much because of sg politics.

as mr ravi mentioned he wake up and ask himself what he has done and he know he have at least done what should be done.

i admit i will not take their road not because can earn a lot or earn little,

but i guess it because of family.

if i am a person with no wife or children i will follow their road.

not easy to find your wife and children to support you if you take the road.

salute them again.

the dpp last time say not right.

S’pore president is a FAT, Unelected, well paid Puppet. By the way, his age is 85 plus. He would rather take his afternoon nap than reading his case. At most, he will toss the coin & decide on that.

S’pore govt is not going to spend money to provide free meals for the gallow criminals.

Mr. Yong is a Malaysian. What gain does S’pore govt have, to spare his life?
The First Water Agreement with Malaysia is expiring in 2011 & Malaysia is unlikely to extend it.

Mas Salamat will be in Malaysia for the next 2 years.
Singapore Air Force is Not allow into Malaysia airspace since Mahathir era.
S’pore Lost out more than gain.

If Mr. Yong is Indonesian then the story is different.
S’pore need sand, natural gas, water, natural resources, etc from Indonesia in years to come……

Even the Indonesian or recent Philippines maid convicted of murder, they were jailed instead.

If the prosecutors cannot go after the big boys, don’t fry the little ones! What a lousy excuse to hang the runners.

if the runners deserve the ultimate punishment, how then should the bosses be punished? Double or tripple hanging? Eg if a powerful dictator who got powerful through drug trades, brings along with him 5 kg of illegal drugs to be pushed out on Spore streets, hanging him is only equivalent to Yong’s punishment. Is there a sense of proportion?

Of course its a show, everything they do is a show esp things that are not money spinning. But alas, the World is watching this show and the World is not going to accept any nonsense.