Comments on: Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion?

By: Global Voices на македонски » Сингапур: Кампања против смртната казна

Global Voices на македонски » Сингапур: Кампања против смртната казна — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:59:42 +0000

[...] блогер Ендрју Ло, за ова пишува во постот на блогот Граѓани онлајн : Многу земји го имаат [...]

By: Singapore: i blogger contro la pena di morte | gli italiani

Singapore: i blogger contro la pena di morte | gli italiani — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:02:02 +0000

[...] blogger Andrew Loh interviene sull’argomento con un articolo [in] su The Online Citizen, blog di giornalismo d’opinione: Molti paesi hanno cambiato [...]

By: Global Voices in Italiano » Singapore: i blogger contro la pena di morte

Global Voices in Italiano » Singapore: i blogger contro la pena di morte — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:13:38 +0000

[...] blogger Andrew Loh interviene sull’argomento con un articolo [in] su The Online Citizen, blog di giornalismo d'opinione: Molti paesi hanno cambiato opinione [...]

By: super lemon

super lemon — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:26:05 +0000

Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion?

of course not. we practise asian values. i dont know wtf asian values is exactly but after so many years of living in an asian valued society, i think it means no human rights and strict societal control plus caning your buttocks for minor crimes like overstay your work visa.

By: pugdragon

pugdragon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:15:07 +0000

The Singapore government is gettin’ away with murder. Someone ought to put the brakes on their tyrannic ways. There the gov goes again, lying through their teeth about our views. “Singaporeans are proud to serve their country.” “Singaporean’s support the death penalty.” Oh yeah? why not give us a fair survey & see how we really think?
It’s also disturbing that in Singapore, suspects are presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite from what’s right.
Death penalty should only be used if the criminal is way too dangerous to be left alive. In other words, in extreme situations. For example, if there’s a super mass murderer who could break outta jails whenever he’s arrested & continue murdering. That’s someone you could justify slaying to protect other people.
It’s hard to disassociate a country with its government. If clothes make a person, government makes a country. & right now, Singapore is stinky thanks to its government. It’s a disgrace to be a Singaporean thanks to the antics of the government.

By: lockeliberal

lockeliberal — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:10:22 +0000

Dear Andrew
How deep or problematic are the flaws and how do they APPLY to the specific case at hand ? You can’t scream flaws in one sentence, and Vong’s repentence remorse and the need for compassion in the next. The problem I find here is that the TOC seems perfectly happy to move away from perfectly good legal reasoning to remove the M from the DP but choses instead to write sob stories and make Vong a pretty poster “innocent” boy for removal of the mandatory DP. Remorse Compassion how Vong is now the living Buddha in Changi bears no resemblance thank god to the legal case presented by his lawyers on his behalf.
You admit directly that Vong is guilty yet find flaws in the way that he was found guilty by referring to “generalities” without addressing the specifics of the case, and when you do refer to specifics it is to construct possible scenarios which YOU find unfair but have no legal bearing on the case at hand.
The law is the law, 18 is 18, If he was over the age for 18 by one day he still should have been hung. In so much as age was an issue and the judge was concerned about his youth , if youth had a been a factor and allowed to have been a factor then international precedents would have been cited with regards to youth and in this the US Supreme Court has made 18 the legal cut of age for capital crime punishment. Something that would have been argued to death in sentencing and post appeal but we do not have precedents as cited in the US.

Locke

By: objectivity

objectivity — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:42:55 +0000

Andrew,

like it was mentioned, would you had agree

Now there was a “discretionary” part . The discretion is by the convicted’s drugs that had carried. If he had com

The “mandatory” portion kicked into effect when he carried 15g or more. Now 15g may not be alot, but it can translate to several kilograms of street drugs. An overdose require just 100mg. Hospitals administer morphine by mcgs. Perhaps it was deemed that 15g was a “way of no return”, that the amount is far too great for mitigating factors to kick in.

la nausee – TOC is far from being objective. :) Why ban all the comments that they don’t want to here? I’m a victim of TOC’s censorship without reason.

By: Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:38:13 +0000

locke,
“…and who is now pleading mercy after the fact.’
You make it seem as though someone can plead for mercy before the fact. Kind of odd. Pleading for mercy is, by its nature, comes after the fact. So, nothing wrong in that. Further, in pleading for mercy, is there not a chance that he has repented? That he feels genuine remorse?
Frankly, I am quite sadden by your stance.
Here is a boy of 19 when he was caught. Having been in jail for some time, he has had time to think about it and has been terrified – but more importantly, by all accounts, have changed.
Yet, here we are – with all the flaws in the system (which anyone can see – including the president of the Law Society, lawyers who have fought capital cases such as Subhas Anandan, Law professors like Michael Hor, lawyers like Sylvia Lim, the international community, etc etc) – here we are still saying he should die.
I think yes age should be taken into consideration. Indeed, at the original trial, the trial judge had misgivings about charging Vui Kong with a capital charge and asked the prosecution if he would reduce the charge to a non-capital one.
What does that tell you?
And here you are calling for his death even when former Chief Justice has said, in court, that yes an innocent man can be hanged because of procedures.
Locke, perhaps you should know more about the mandatory death penalty.
I do not apologise for my feelings about it. Call me a bleeding heart, if you want, it doesn’t matter to me. But beyond being a bleeding heart, the concerns are not mine alone. They are echoed by professionals and academics who have experienced and studied the law on the MDP – both locally and internationally.
I will end this discussion here. For I do not feel and I do not intend to try and persuade you.
Just know that we only know truly how it feels when we face the same consequences ourselves. And when we do and we have, remember how terrified we were – and also remember that we may not have faced the death penalty.
Take some time to think.

By: Jagdpanther

Jagdpanther — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:55:01 +0000

The MDP is too rigid. We are all in Munchen. Where are you people?

By: lockeliberal

lockeliberal — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:11:14 +0000

Andrew repeated as you might have missed

am against the M in the MDP because I believe in giving judges the discretion and the chance defense and prosecution to argue their respective cases for sentencing. Of course to the extent that I believe in this I also believe that it does not apply to Vong who I view as a repeated offender who was caught only after how many trips etc and who is now pleading mercy after the fact.

Locke

By: PeterC

PeterC — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:27:59 +0000

Whatever deals to be made between lawyers,judges in chambers or at coffeshop,just get rid of these SCUMS.
Our home and Nation is in dire strait and need solutions,lets debate on that.The poor and less fortunate needs help,the middle class are stagnant and being overwhelm by FTs.HDB homes are beyond a newly wed couples reach.We have ministers with million dollar salaries that look and speak like Idiots on TV
How about THAT!!!!!

By: Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:05:41 +0000

locke,
For now, my take is very simple, regarding the issue of making deals.
If you wanna make deals with drug traffickers, then don’t make the death sentence mandatory.

By: Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:03:15 +0000

locke,
I think I will reply to your latest post after you have replied to my question – which I am asking for the fourth time:
You say you support the removal of the “mandatory” part of the death sentence.
My question is: Why do you say that? What are your reasons?

By: lockeliberal

lockeliberal — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:48:37 +0000

Andrew
Let me lay out for clear scenarios and you and the readers can decide accordingly, all with deals and snitch with supporting other physical evidence
a. Non capital punishment, deal is made to secure a snitch and a conviction whom the prosecution defines as a bigger fish for a long jail; term. Does that mean justice is not served ? Does it make “mockery” out of justice, does it make a mockery of the criminal jail sentence
b. Mandatory sentencing three strikes and u are out life imprisonment without parole, deal is made to secure a snitch and a conviction whom the prosecution defines as a bigger fish. Does it mean justice was not served ? Does it make a mockery out of justice out of life imprisonment without parole ?
C. Capital punishment, deal is made to secure a snitch and a conviction whom the prosecution views as more liable, or bears greater guilt, Does that mean justice is not served, does it make mockery out of the DP
d. MDP, deal is made to secure a snitch etc etc same as A B C …..Does it mean justice is not served does it make a mockery out of the MDP ?
I guess in some form to me doing a deal is part of justice. The law will forever be imperfect with flaws and will always be a process of improvement, ethics, procedures. The fact that deals are cut made etc because of human nature and its interaction with an absolute law will be something I can accept from A to D but which you cannot seem to accept.

Locke

By: frogamania

frogamania — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:02:58 +0000

I really enjoyed the exchange between Le Nausee and SD. Sparks and fire is what I like most. The harder it burns the better. See you all in Germany.

By: lockeliberal

lockeliberal — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:38:06 +0000

Dear Andrew
You can’t have ur cake and eat it. Of course fingering is given weight here in the US in the UK, How much weight and whether there is other evidence to support it or it is the sole source of evidence and for what specific crime is the issue at hand. You can’t just apply it blindly and generally without looking into the specifics as to how it has affected the MDP and MDP cases in particular.
As I stated if Reggie did not do any fingering, or if for that matter there was only physical evidence and Vong did another Tochi, you and TOC would probably be screaming his innocence from the rafters, as it is because of both Physical Evidence and Reggie all you can scream is compassion reform and remorse.
I am against the M in the MDP because I believe in giving judges the discretion and the chance defense and prosecution to argue their respective cases for sentencing. Of course to the extent that I believe in this I also believe that it does not apply to Vong who I view as a repeated offender who was caught only after how many trips etc and who is now pleading mercy after the fact.

Locke

By: PeterC

PeterC — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:22:06 +0000

1. A hardcore brother-in-law that cheats,steal,lie,and if need be kill to get his fix
2.Three cousins from age 16 to current. DHC is their 2nd home
3. A friend that crash his car while under the influence of heroin & alcohol at age 35
All these I see and witness personally.MDA-DA, sent them to a remote island and rot or jail them and throw away the key whatever.Just remove these scums and their kind may it be Lords,traffickers,mules or whatever.
The heartache and misery for the families of children under this CURSE is beyond writing and debating.

By: Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:39:12 +0000

“Deterrence well some would say that an accomplice versus the actual evil doer etc if the actual evil doer is caught based on snitch testimony from the accomplice then deterrence has been accomplished by ensuring that overall the CRIME is punnished.”
Reggie Gwee was not just an accomplice. He was a trafficker as well.
That was why he was charged for trafficking.
Please be clear.

By: Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:37:40 +0000

And locke,
For the third time, I ask you:
You say you support the removal of the “mandatory” part of the death sentence.
My question is: Why do you say that? What are your reasons?

By: Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:37:04 +0000

locke,
On your second posting, my stance against the mandatory death penalty is based on many factors – mostly flaws in the law and the legal system.
It is not based on being anti-death for the sake of it.
And to be clear, I am against the MANDATORY death penalty.
I am not, at this moment, against the death penalty per se.
So, please do not put words into my mouth or make my beliefs out of thin air.