Jump to content
Sgcarmart Trusted Brand Showcase - Jack Cars at Katong i12 from 22 to 28 Apr 2024 ×

NUS Molester gets probation for 'minor intrusion' offences

Beregond

By Beregond,
in Lite & EZ

 Share

Recommended Posts

Count-Bracula

Count-Bracula

Twincharged
2 hours ago, Jamesc said:

image.png.a846902236e5346b33a5b1e6c39e79f8.png

This shows Singapore students are the smartest in the world.

Swedish student scold people in the UN and what does she get? Nothing.

HK student protest on the street and what do they get? Nothing.

Singapore student? At least he get some nice photos to keep for the mammaries. 

:D

image.png.fe964fd35f741e96385c4f5c96c175a1.png

LMAO!!

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
  • Haha! 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Windwaver

Windwaver

Turbocharged
On 9/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, Ysc3 said:

In other words,  got potential to do good in future,  then present can do bad! 

That means if a person don't have potential then will have longer sentence loh.

So much for elitism :ouch-it-hurts: 

  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fu11thr0tt1e

Fu11thr0tt1e

Turbocharged
55 minutes ago, Windwaver said:

That means if a person don't have potential then will have longer sentence loh.

So much for elitism :ouch-it-hurts: 

The correct term is DOUBLE STANDARDS.

  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fu11thr0tt1e

Fu11thr0tt1e

Turbocharged
(edited)
2 hours ago, Playtime said:

One society two systems. 

I don't recall LKY practice double standards when he was in charged!

We need to vote for a fairer system where every Singapore child is treated fairly and equally! Period

Edited by Fu11thr0tt1e
  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sosaria

Sosaria

Turbocharged
(edited)
22 hours ago, Windwaver said:

That means if a person don't have potential then will have longer sentence loh.

So much for elitism :ouch-it-hurts: 

 

That's how lawyers will plead for their clients.

 

Good qualifications equals more likely to hold a better job, more stability, and more to lose should he or she re-offend. Good family background also implies a better support structure and more reliable eyes monitoring. Thus a better candidate for rehabilitation.

 

Compared to pai kia, unemployed, bad influence all around, nothing to lose. Broken family, no supervision.

Edited by Sosaria
  • Praise 1
  • Shocked 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Philipkee

Philipkee

Twincharged

I am of the opinion that with a bright future, perhaps sentences should not be so severe.   Why ruin the future of a person unnecessarily? 

The problem now is now do you know who has a bright future? You cant say NUS student definitely has a brighter future than an ITE.  So either all sentences for peeping Tom cases/ uploading of videos should be equally severe or equally lenient.

I think if it is possible, the law should allow for custodial jail sentence with no record.  How it works is like that.   An adult who is arrested for peeping is jailed for two years (for example).  He has a criminal record.  Perhaps for students or problem under 25, those caught can be jailed for two years as well  but upon release, the record is stricken off.  If he re offends he is considered a first time offender again (but now he will go to jail and have criminal record).  It has to be a jail sentence because i think boys home have an age limit.

This will be a balance because students wont want to have their studies disrupted by being in  jail for two years, there is some measure of justice meted out and their future prospects are also not ruined because there is no criminal record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beregond

Beregond

Supersonic
  • Author
47 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

I am of the opinion that with a bright future, perhaps sentences should not be so severe.   Why ruin the future of a person unnecessarily? 

The problem now is now do you know who has a bright future? You cant say NUS student definitely has a brighter future than an ITE.  So either all sentences for peeping Tom cases/ uploading of videos should be equally severe or equally lenient.

I think if it is possible, the law should allow for custodial jail sentence with no record.  How it works is like that.   An adult who is arrested for peeping is jailed for two years (for example).  He has a criminal record.  Perhaps for students or problem under 25, those caught can be jailed for two years as well  but upon release, the record is stricken off.  If he re offends he is considered a first time offender again (but now he will go to jail and have criminal record).  It has to be a jail sentence because i think boys home have an age limit.

This will be a balance because students wont want to have their studies disrupted by being in  jail for two years, there is some measure of justice meted out and their future prospects are also not ruined because there is no criminal record.

bro are u serious....i cannot agree to this.

when u say should not be so severe. is it because u feel peeping or touching is also not severe??

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Atrecord

Atrecord

Supersonic
1 hour ago, Picnic06-Biante15 said:

Can really see the double standard practices here .....:a-aggressive:

Uni vs Poly ...  :a-no:

Probation vs Jail  ... [:(]

Now all eyes will be on those lenient cases pending appeal, see whether the Court will impose jail as public uproar can be deafening, as it has been...

The NUS guys now stressed after been happy...

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Atrecord

Atrecord

Supersonic
51 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

I am of the opinion that with a bright future, perhaps sentences should not be so severe.   Why ruin the future of a person unnecessarily? 

The problem now is now do you know who has a bright future? You cant say NUS student definitely has a brighter future than an ITE.  So either all sentences for peeping Tom cases/ uploading of videos should be equally severe or equally lenient.

I think if it is possible, the law should allow for custodial jail sentence with no record.  How it works is like that.   An adult who is arrested for peeping is jailed for two years (for example).  He has a criminal record.  Perhaps for students or problem under 25, those caught can be jailed for two years as well  but upon release, the record is stricken off.  If he re offends he is considered a first time offender again (but now he will go to jail and have criminal record).  It has to be a jail sentence because i think boys home have an age limit.

This will be a balance because students wont want to have their studies disrupted by being in  jail for two years, there is some measure of justice meted out and their future prospects are also not ruined because there is no criminal record.

Cannot lah. Like this will have no deterrence. Everyday will have many offenders one...

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mockngbrd

Mockngbrd

Supersonic
58 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

I am of the opinion that with a bright future, perhaps sentences should not be so severe.   Why ruin the future of a person unnecessarily? 

The problem now is now do you know who has a bright future? You cant say NUS student definitely has a brighter future than an ITE.  So either all sentences for peeping Tom cases/ uploading of videos should be equally severe or equally lenient.

I think if it is possible, the law should allow for custodial jail sentence with no record.  How it works is like that.   An adult who is arrested for peeping is jailed for two years (for example).  He has a criminal record.  Perhaps for students or problem under 25, those caught can be jailed for two years as well  but upon release, the record is stricken off.  If he re offends he is considered a first time offender again (but now he will go to jail and have criminal record).  It has to be a jail sentence because i think boys home have an age limit.

This will be a balance because students wont want to have their studies disrupted by being in  jail for two years, there is some measure of justice meted out and their future prospects are also not ruined because there is no criminal record.

+ if amdk molest girl, must punish the girl for bring slut. 

  • Haha! 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Philipkee

Philipkee

Twincharged
1 minute ago, Beregond said:

bro are u serious....i cannot agree to this.

when u say should not be so severe. is it because u feel peeping or touching is also not severe??

I dunno.  When I say severe, I was meaning destroy a future over this?

My opinion for severity of crimes

Severe would be - murder, loan sharking, drug trafficking, assault and battery, robbery rape and molest.  Definite jail and caning or death sentence.

Not so severe

Theft.  I think this one it's like depend on the amount and motive.  

Peeping Tom - a bit vague when it comes to students.  Definitely there must be punishment  but to destroy a future?  I dunno.  So I was thinking of a custodial jail sentence as opposed to a criminal record.

Off topic.  If a student stole my wallet and returned it, I also dont think it's worth destroying a person's future with criminal record as well.  Or if someone stole my money to buy food I wont press for any punishment.  But that's me.  Cos I dont think it's that severe. 

Other crimes, I dunno. You must specify then I give my opinion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beregond

Beregond

Supersonic
  • Author
4 minutes ago, Atrecord said:

Cannot lah. Like this will have no deterrence. Everyday will have many offenders one...

deterrence is 1 issue, 

if we feel peeping and touch filming is something minor, we should not spoil the offender future. then its the best prove we have fallen.

our 道德思想 reach the btm.

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Picnic06-Biante15

Picnic06-Biante15

Supersonic
(edited)

Every year, there are few thousand graduated from the different courses they had taken in all Uni in SG (NUS, NTI, SIM, SMU, Curtin's, James Crook. ......etc).

The percentage of the those committed an offences should comes to about maybe 0.001%. [:(]

So punish them with accordance to the law stated in the "Penal Code" or "Criminal Procedure Code" will not dilute the future pool of talented graduates from the few thousands yearly.

So giving the reason that he/her future as a preceeding factors in sentencing is rubbish. [mad]

So many examples in the past had shown that persons send to prison comes out a much better person and contribute greatly to the societies.

One good example was our late great criminal lawyer, Subash. He studied hard in prison and becomes a good lawyer. Many learned their lesson in prison and a change person when released.   

 Some with good GPA results and top honor would at a later stage might commit offences as human nature is a funny thing, 'alway not enough or hungrier for more' ....   :lll._.:   

To me, sentence them as according to the law fairly and not his qualifications, future or family background.....  :yuush:  

Edited by Picnic06-Biante15
  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Philipkee

Philipkee

Twincharged
8 minutes ago, Atrecord said:

Cannot lah. Like this will have no deterrence. Everyday will have many offenders one...

If a two year jail sentence cannot deter students who are presumably educated(even if no criminal record), I think we are in deep s××t.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...