NUS GIRL takes her perpetrator to task

[Jamesc]

Your url like not working. I repost for you 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5qWfkBb9YQ

 

[Tonyng]

I think SPF is way wrong. I see people keep harping on giving Nic a second chance and he has a low likelihood of repeat and he will go and become a useful citizen.

 

Hey, I agree with ALL the above but I still feel SPF is wrong. There main issue is does GOING soft on first timers encourage more of such crimes. I would think so, isn't this a reasonable assumption? A conditional warning is literally zero punishment from the SPF. (NUS punishment should not be considered as there is no way the SPF knows how NUS will act)

 

There is obviously two paths to take

 

1) Charge everyone of the people who trespasses and filmed girls in a private area and let the courts decide. In this case, initially quite a few young hot blooded males will get punished, their names plastered in public and affecting their future. In time, I would think people will know this is a serious crime and such incidents will do down. Less victims, and LESS STUPID hot blooded males getting their future ruined.

 

2) continue as this is. Give first timers a second chance. Sure after the trauma of getting caught, I am pretty certain none of them will repeat the same mistake. But where is the deterent? Remember for everyone of the 26 cases caught, I bet there is 10 other which is not caught. Word will get around like now that this is a minor crime, remorseful guys will get a second chance. Like you said, the SPF is consistent in this, giving out second chance. It is not because that guy is rich, it is just because he is a first timer, remorseful, no other stupid things inside his laptop. With this Consistency, almost everyone can expect a free pass.

 

 

At the end of the day is weighing the harm caused to the few young men who acted in a moment of folly to the potential gain in reduction of the number of such cases in the future helping both the victims and any would be film directors...

 

To me the choice is pretty clear.

 

BTW, to answer your question on what basis to say 26 cases is too many. The answer is simple, It is the judgement of the majority of the society. The SPF exists to give singaporeans a society which we are comfortable with. If the majority of singaporeans feel that 26 cases is waaay too many, then it is too many.

 

Look at USA, they can tolerate shootings after shootings but they go up in arms when some of the freedoms are taken away. Each society is different. I feel singaporeans care much less about freedoms of speech than say security of their family.

You agree but still conclude otherwise - which does not make sense but ok.

 

Reading down- your essential point is you prefer to punish more - esp like guy in this nus context - to send a stronger deterrent- this is at best a debatable point.

 

The problem is sexual assault crimes are hard to prove- and with out size penalty - many offenders will simply insist it is not them. There will be resources and time spent to prove each case and delayed closure for the victim.

 

What Nus is doing is simple - assure these kids a second chance and extract a confession and it has resolves most cases and of course made Nus complacent and dropped the ball on victim support and security and prevention training.

 

Until this case. I applaud this reveal and have no sympathy for Nus.

 

This girl is a victim but she was vindictive- and worse - keep insisting she is not being revengeful but yet explored options to take guy to court and finally naming him which she NEED NOT do to achieve her expressed goal of taking Nus to task. And likely Nus and spf has told her same thing - we considered and we wanted to give guy a second chance.

 

So she, like many bros here, do not agree with a final call from our spf and feel justified in online public shaming - this is nothing more than lawlessness.

 

If vigilante justice is so good, why not put every case out and let artificial intelligence score each post and aggregate and decide a verdict?

 

Worse here, no minister Nor Nus senior management Nor most here had the good sense to call her out on it.

 

This is most disturbing.

[Inlinefour]

 

Monica is a pretty girl 

[Sosaria]

Monica is a pretty girl

Mmmm... 7/10 to me Needs some toning

 

Anyway nowadays not politically correct to say that shower peeping/video problem only happens to pretty girls

Edited April 27, 2019 by Sosaria

[Othello]

You agree but still conclude otherwise - which does not make sense but ok.

 

Reading down- your essential point is you prefer to punish more - esp like guy in this nus context - to send a stronger deterrent- this is at best a debatable point.

 

The problem is sexual assault crimes are hard to prove- and with out size penalty - many offenders will simply insist it is not them. There will be resources and time spent to prove each case and delayed closure for the victim.

 

What Nus is doing is simple - assure these kids a second chance and extract a confession and it has resolves most cases and of course made Nus complacent and dropped the ball on victim support and security and prevention training.

 

Until this case. I applaud this reveal and have no sympathy for Nus.

 

This girl is a victim but she was vindictive- and worse - keep insisting she is not being revengeful but yet explored options to take guy to court and finally naming him which she NEED NOT do to achieve her expressed goal of taking Nus to task. And likely Nus and spf has told her same thing - we considered and we wanted to give guy a second chance.

 

So she, like many bros here, do not agree with a final call from our spf and feel justified in online public shaming - this is nothing more than lawlessness.

 

If vigilante justice is so good, why not put every case out and let artificial intelligence score each post and aggregate and decide a verdict?

 

Worse here, no minister Nor Nus senior management Nor most here had the good sense to call her out on it.

 

This is most disturbing.

 

sorry, what is your point actually ?? 

 

Many of us have moved on very early from Nicholas Lim Jun Kai and Monica Baey. 

 

But it seems people like you and few others simply wouldn't stop biting ............... 

 

sometimes I just wonder, really ............. who are the ones baying for blood, and WHOSE blood .... ?!? 

 

but anyway, I'm happy. One more to add to my Ignore list. Yippee !! 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Othello

[Othello]

Old man knows only 1 thing if happened to loved one. Old man will make doubly make sure the perpetrator will never get to enjoy his father's day.

 

If happen to my family, I confirm 10 x more vindictive than Thanks-Thanks-Thanks-Thanks Monica !!

 

I'm such a lousy human being 

Monica is a pretty girl 

 

I concur ! 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Othello

[Fcw75]

Sometimes this old man wonder what will our reactions be if our daughters, wives, nieces or girlfriends etc kena peeped by others or worse sexually assaulted?

 

Do we still say SPF/AGC or smlj agencies decide what is a chargeable offence or not?

 

Old man knows only 1 thing if happened to loved one. Old man will make doubly make sure the perpetrator will never get to enjoy his father's day.

That’s why I always said talk is free when it didn’t happen to own daughter, son, etc.

[TameDriver]

You agree but still conclude otherwise - which does not make sense but ok.

 

Reading down- your essential point is you prefer to punish more - esp like guy in this nus context - to send a stronger deterrent- this is at best a debatable point.

 

The problem is sexual assault crimes are hard to prove- and with out size penalty - many offenders will simply insist it is not them. There will be resources and time spent to prove each case and delayed closure for the victim.

 

What Nus is doing is simple - assure these kids a second chance and extract a confession and it has resolves most cases and of course made Nus complacent and dropped the ball on victim support and security and prevention training.

 

Until this case. I applaud this reveal and have no sympathy for Nus.

 

This girl is a victim but she was vindictive- and worse - keep insisting she is not being revengeful but yet explored options to take guy to court and finally naming him which she NEED NOT do to achieve her expressed goal of taking Nus to task. And likely Nus and spf has told her same thing - we considered and we wanted to give guy a second chance.

 

So she, like many bros here, do not agree with a final call from our spf and feel justified in online public shaming - this is nothing more than lawlessness.

 

If vigilante justice is so good, why not put every case out and let artificial intelligence score each post and aggregate and decide a verdict?

 

Worse here, no minister Nor Nus senior management Nor most here had the good sense to call her out on it.

 

This is most disturbing.

 

 

You know what is more disturbing?

It's people like you who called Monica Baey 'vindictive'.

Hello! She's the victim here!

She has the rights to raise a ruckus and name the sexual predator if she wishes.

It's Her Prerogative; a victim's Prerogative!

[Freeder]

sorry, what is your point actually ??

 

Many of us have moved on very early from Nicholas Lim Jun Kai and Monica Baey.

 

But it seems people like you and few others simply wouldn't stop biting ...............

 

sometimes I just wonder, really ............. who are the ones baying for blood, and WHOSE blood .... ?!?

 

but anyway, I'm happy. One more to add to my Ignore list. Yippee !!

So can move on and start discussion on the latest NTU peeping man case liao boh? Yucks...

[Fcw75]

Exactly!

 

[Jellandross]

6. If i don't view Nic action as a MAJOR crime, and you do - does not mean you are entitled to call me morally empty or stupid

 

you mean only if someone agrees with you means they are morally upright, and the rest are morally bankrupt?

Technically, calling you stupid and immoral is also an opinion.

 

So everybody is entitled to their opinion.

 

Subjected to MCF courtesy campaign rules.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Jellandross

[Wind30]

You agree but still conclude otherwise - which does not make sense but ok.

 

Reading down- your essential point is you prefer to punish more - esp like guy in this nus context - to send a stronger deterrent- this is at best a debatable point.

 

The problem is sexual assault crimes are hard to prove- and with out size penalty - many offenders will simply insist it is not them. There will be resources and time spent to prove each case and delayed closure for the victim.

 

What Nus is doing is simple - assure these kids a second chance and extract a confession and it has resolves most cases and of course made Nus complacent and dropped the ball on victim support and security and prevention training.

 

 

 

I snipped off the bottom part of your post because it is on a different topic which I feel is actually pretty irrelevant.

 

So at the end of the day where is the deterrent? I don't think law and punishment as a deterrent to crime is a debatable point. It is something proven EVERYWHERE. 

 

I am not sure what your argument is.... Are you saying it is hard to extract the punishment out of these crimes in court and thus it is hard to bring the offender to justice? I don't think so actually. There are two general cases involved. 

 

1) Offenders who acted out of immaturity. They are probably like Nic and it is not hard to convict such people cuz the evidence are all there. They did not cover their tracks well

2) Offenders who planned hard to avoid detection, with great motive and planning. These people are the hardcore offenders. Yes they are harder to bring to justice but are we supposed to let these people go then? No, the police actually do think that such people should be charged and rightly so.

 

As for the closure, I have said before, if the victim wishes to forgive the accused and wants to move on without the stresses of testifying in court, I think the police can take that into account and give a warning if the case is not too heinous. What is being done now is that the victims wish is totally ignored and SPF, from their own words, are consistently giving warnings to such crimes. 

 

Can you explain you argument a little more clearly?

[Zhivago]

I can only imagine a young girl crying uncontrollably telling her father she was filmed while showering at school . Father replied hey it’s not like u lost a tooth brush to a thief , suck it up . Give the perpetrator a second chance lah , it’s just a minor offense. Where is justice ?

Edited April 27, 2019 by Zhivago

[Aventador]

Technically, calling you stupid and immoral is also an opinion.

 

So everybody is entitled to their opinion.

 

Subjected to MCF courtesy campaign rules.

Yes of course it is

 

So that is your contribution to the debate? So my opinion is you are vacuous and immature

 

All these personal attacks because I support the decision of the Police?

You would have thought I was the one who recorded Monica

 

There are some crazy people here, again it is an opinion

[Aventador]

I can only imagine a young girl crying uncontrollably telling her father she was filmed while showering at school . Father replied hey it’s not like u lost a tooth brush to a thief , suck it up . Give the perpetrator a second chance lah , it’s just a minor offense. Where is justice ?

You obviously cannot understand context

Neither can a few others here that only pick up on the toothbrush issue and repeat it to hit out at my personal opinion

 

Please be more matured

 

The shop theft anecdote was brought up to show that the police do exercise their prerogative in cases that are classified as minor crimes to issue warnings instead of charging as a crime

 

both shop theft and this case of outrage of modesty was deemed by SPF/AGC minor enough to allow Nic a second chance with a warning

 

It does not mean that shop theft = outrage of modesty. They are different actions

 

If you feel very strongly that outrage of modesty under section 509 is not minor enough to be given a second chance, and to jail everyone, please write in to the SPF and AGC

 

It does not change my opinion that Nic deserves a second chance

Even if my Wife or Daughter was molested in future (touch wood of course), it will not change my opinion that SPF/ AGC did the correct thing to give Nic a chance

 

My opinion is only on this Case with Nic. It does not mean I view all such cases the same, it has to be

Based on circumstances

 

Everyone makes mistakes, if he is deemed to deserve a chance in life by the State, I support them

Even though I am no PAP fan boy, I think our Police force does a good job

Edited April 28, 2019 by Aventador

[Tonyng]

I snipped off the bottom part of your post because it is on a different topic which I feel is actually pretty irrelevant.

 

So at the end of the day where is the deterrent? I don't think law and punishment as a deterrent to crime is a debatable point. It is something proven EVERYWHERE.

 

I am not sure what your argument is.... Are you saying it is hard to extract the punishment out of these crimes in court and thus it is hard to bring the offender to justice? I don't think so actually. There are two general cases involved.

 

1) Offenders who acted out of immaturity. They are probably like Nic and it is not hard to convict such people cuz the evidence are all there. They did not cover their tracks well

2) Offenders who planned hard to avoid detection, with great motive and planning. These people are the hardcore offenders. Yes they are harder to bring to justice but are we supposed to let these people go then? No, the police actually do think that such people should be charged and rightly so.

 

As for the closure, I have said before, if the victim wishes to forgive the accused and wants to move on without the stresses of testifying in court, I think the police can take that into account and give a warning if the case is not too heinous. What is being done now is that the victims wish is totally ignored and SPF, from their own words, are consistently giving warnings to such crimes.

 

Can you explain you argument a little more clearly?

Haha the main thrust of my argument is in the part you snipped off.

 

I no criminologist but I indulge you - I don't want to talk about subjects on this -cause if I pronounce judgement- then like most of you - I am no different.

 

So here In spf handling, I submit to their decision not to persecute and give chance.

 

And now - as I said your points that are crystal clear to you are debatable to me - 3 aspects -I call them - the commit, the hold and the confession.

 

Punishment as deterrent works to large extent but not as effective as you may think.

 

These crimes tend to be those that you characterise - "moments of folly" - or crimes of passion

 

Extreme example is murder - you know most countries -the punishment is lifelong imprisonment or here- death penalty- yet you still get murders - how to explain? And by your reasoning - why not upgrade most crimes many notches in punishment to deter and solve the problem?

 

Such is human nature where emotions override all reason-akin to what is happening here. Hahaah

 

Sexual crimes are like this - esp in a young hot blooded male (as you said) and when alcohol meets opportunity-all reason gets thrown out - people will still try. And will still commit.

 

Next is the hold. In crimes like that, people overridden by emotion - what kind of punishment has a hold on them? So you think expulsion has a hold on all people? So you think death penalty has a hold on an angry lover?

 

By intro disportionate sentencing - unintended consequences in this case - people who are rich can afford an expulsion- just go somewhere else and start anew. And more..

 

Which brings us to the next major point - confession.

Sexual crimes are varied - secret filming is just one. The nature of sexual crimes unfortunately difficult to prove- usually private circumstances, video may not be clear, was video corrupted, can video be doctored, it may be a touch, a brush, it may be consenting up to point girl changed her mind and her right to. How to prove?

 

When the penalty cost is so high, it will make sense to hire a lawyer to wiggle way out and find fault at every evidence. This again rewards the rich. And spf and our courts will just need to spend more public money on all these cases and lead to court delay on more important ones like rape.

 

And I can tell what will happen after this case - in fact, a lot of offenders will just lawyer up and the victims will find it harder to find closure.

 

Now my 3 points can be argued against- but what I am saying is the point you make is debatable - because there are major unintended consequences. :-)

[BenTong]

You obviously cannot understand context

Neither can a few others here that only pick up on the toothbrush issue and repeat it to hit out at my personal opinion

 

Please be more matured

 

The shop theft anecdote was brought up to show that the police do exercise their prerogative in cases that are classified as minor crimes to issue warnings instead of charging as a crime

 

both shop theft and this case of outrage of modesty was deemed by SPF/AGC minor enough to allow Nic a second chance with a warning

 

It does not mean that shop theft = outrage of modesty. They are different actions

 

If you feel very strongly that outrage of modesty under section 509 is not minor enough to be given a second chance, and to jail everyone, please write in to the SPF and AGC

 

It does not change my opinion that Nic deserves a second chance

Even if my Wife or Daughter was molested in future (touch wood of course), it will not change my opinion that SPF/ AGC did the correct thing to give Nic a chance

 

My opinion is only on this Case with Nic. It does not mean I view all such cases the same, it has to be

Based on circumstances

 

Everyone makes mistakes, if he is deemed to deserve a chance in life by the State, I support them

Even though I am no PAP fan boy, I think our Police force does a good job

..I praise you for your bravery in bringing your wife and daughter in. Hopefully you don’t have to sleep in the void deck for too Long..

[Zhivago]

You obviously cannot understand context

Neither can a few others here that only pick up on the toothbrush issue and repeat it to hit out at my personal opinion

 

Please be more matured

 

The shop theft anecdote was brought up to show that the police do exercise their prerogative in cases that are classified as minor crimes to issue warnings instead of charging as a crime

 

both shop theft and this case of outrage of modesty was deemed by SPF/AGC minor enough to allow Nic a second chance with a warning

 

It does not mean that shop theft = outrage of modesty. They are different actions

 

If you feel very strongly that outrage of modesty under section 509 is not minor enough to be given a second chance, and to jail everyone, please write in to the SPF and AGC

 

It does not change my opinion that Nic deserves a second chance

Even if my Wife or Daughter was molested in future (touch wood of course), it will not change my opinion that SPF/ AGC did the correct thing to give Nic a chance

 

My opinion is only on this Case with Nic. It does not mean I view all such cases the same, it has to be

Based on circumstances

 

Everyone makes mistakes, if he is deemed to deserve a chance in life by the State, I support them

Even though I am no PAP fan boy, I think our Police force does a good job

Why u wrote a grandfather story to justified your stand which u have said countless time ? It’s a imaginary post , get over it . U ok or not ?