Law Misconceptions in SG

[Inlinefour]

imho a jury will be more fair before sentence

 

rather than judge decision

 

anyway most people think law is a tool for the rich 🙊🙉🙈 

 

cos most peasant can't afford the hefty fee

 

my 2ml worth of ron 92 

[Picnic06-Biante15]

Up to till now, still wondering .....  

Does Laws lenient on the top 10% of elites, those with good futures, AMDK, FT and from good family.   

[Macrosszero]

Last time people inspired by HK drama, anything not happy and they go, “I’m gonna sue you!”

Sometimes their target calls their bluff and actually forces them to hire a lawyer

Nowadays, it’s much more democratic, as long as you have a smartphone and an internet connection, one can go around yelling,

”I’m gonna make you famous!”

No need to be rich.

[Ingenius]

The one thing I know about law is, never get into trouble with the law. Even if one is acquitted eventually, the process of going thru the legal tussle is torturing enough, the worrying, the prohibitive cost and the tiring process. So my philosophy in life is don't get into trouble with the law, it's hellish. 

 

When I was young I once got into a big trouble, and seeing my parents suffer and myself being locked up, going to court and public places in cuffs under public's eyes, is horrendous. Not to mention the constant worry of the eventual conviction and sentence.  The experience of being in a lockup for 23 hours a day is life changing. 

 

After that , I never break any law till now and never step into court once. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Ingenius

[Wind30]

11 hours ago, Turboflat4 said:

I understand your perspective, and I respect it. However, let me elucidate why I disagree.

The system here already heavily favours the establishment - it just seems lopsided and highly inequitable to let the prosecution, with so many resources at its disposal, have a "second crack" at "getting their man". Basically, an acquittal is supposed to be a hugely relieving event, but in Singapore, it is almost never so, as one will always have the spectre of a prosecution appeal hanging over one. A legal finding of innocence should not be tentative. Also, can you even begin to imagine the ghastliness when it comes to a capital case? You've been told you're going to live one day, only to find that that can well be reversed tomorrow.

Also, most people don't have a bottomless pit of financial resources and mounting a legal defence is expensive. Once one has won a case, to be dragged back into court and forced to defend against yet another appeal by the prosecution, seems almost an inhuman (not to mention inhumane) burden to bear.

Finally, it seems that we are getting more and more populist by the day. A lot of influence is wielded by public opinion, either directly, or with the support (I am loath to use a word like coercion) of certain elected representatives of the people. There have been cases where an acquital has been secured after the requisite and harrowing legal rigmarole, but then social media starts ringing out its condemnation of the outcome. Then so-and-so makes all kinds of statements urging the prosecution to appeal. Let's not kid ourselves that things still remain perfectly unbiased during this whole process. With such a de facto system in place, it is especially dangerous to let the prosecution have another crack at a defendant already declared innocent once - we do not want the court of public opinion to have any legal weight whatsover.

For the above reasons, I am strongly in disfavour of the current system. We're not even talking about double jeopardy here (which other jurisdictions explicitly protect one against), just the simple injustice (in my view) of putting someone who has been declared innocent through the emotional, legal and financial wringer one more time via a prosecutorial appeal.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/prosecution-files-appeal-against-ex-grab-drivers-acquittal-attempted-rape-drunk-passenger-1894706
 

I am in favour for appeals on both sides. If u believe judge can make mistakes, it is illogical to allow one sided appeals as that would mean letting go 50% of the mistakes….

At the end of the day, who are we trying to protect here? Like the grab uncle case, is he guilty of rape? I don’t know. Can I avoid ending up like him, without a doubt can. If u do things right, it is highly unlikely the public prosecutor will go after you…. 
 

I prefer to have our laws protect the girl vs the uncle. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Wind30

[Vratenza]

3 minutes ago, Wind30 said:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/prosecution-files-appeal-against-ex-grab-drivers-acquittal-attempted-rape-drunk-passenger-1894706
 

I am in favour for appeals on both sides. If u believe judge can make mistakes, it is illogical to allow one sided appeals as that would mean letting go 50% of the mistakes….

At the end of the day, who are we trying to protect here? Like the grab uncle case, is he guilty of rape? I don’t know. Can I avoid ending up like him, without a doubt can. 
 

I prefer to have our laws protect the girl vs the uncle. 

I am a law lay person but I see this example as a failure of the prosecutor to build their case properly before putting forth their case in front of the judge.

TF4's point I believe is that if the prosecutor had done their due diligence with all the state machinery and resources behind them, there should be no real need for prosecutor to appeal any decision made by the presiding judge, assuming all the judge are of a certain standard and calibre.

[1fast1]

1 minute ago, Vratenza said:

I am a law lay person but I see this example as a failure of the prosecutor to build their case properly before putting forth their case in front of the judge.

TF4's point I believe is that if the prosecutor had done their due diligence with all the state machinery and resources behind them, there should be no real need for prosecutor to appeal any decision made by the presiding judge, assuming all the judge are of a certain standard and calibre.

Exactly. And after the initial decision to acquit, there may be other factors that creep in and influence the process during a prosecutorial appeal. 

[1fast1]

10 minutes ago, Wind30 said:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/prosecution-files-appeal-against-ex-grab-drivers-acquittal-attempted-rape-drunk-passenger-1894706
 

I am in favour for appeals on both sides. If u believe judge can make mistakes, it is illogical to allow one sided appeals as that would mean letting go 50% of the mistakes….

At the end of the day, who are we trying to protect here? Like the grab uncle case, is he guilty of rape? I don’t know. Can I avoid ending up like him, without a doubt can. If u do things right, it is highly unlikely the public prosecutor will go after you…. 
 

I prefer to have our laws protect the girl vs the uncle. 

Don't you make any allowance for false allegations of rape? Just like your claim that the public prosecutor won't "go after you" if you "do things right", I can just as easily assert that a Judge wouldn't have found you innocent without good reason. 

The rest of my points are addressed by what I've said before, Vratenza's reply to you etc. It's an asymmetric and lopsided process. No need to weight things further to the State's advantage, at the risk of someone's freedom and even life. 

[Jellandross]

If I'm not wrong, an arrested suspect has no rights to see his/her lawyer (or anyone else) until police finish taking statements. Keeping quiet or being uncooperative during statement-taking is also viewed as an implicit admission of guilt by the courts.

[Ingenius]

For criminal prosecution, the police would have ascertained that the accused is really guilty, before passing to prosecutor.  In other words, there must be water tight evidence and confession by the accused. But when the case goes on trial, the accused can be found innocent.  This is because the prosecution has to prove guilt on the part of the accused, and this process is often not easy, given the complexity of cases and time lapses. Defense can easily break this process of proving guilty without reasonable doubt. 

 

So most accused being declared innocent is not because they really are, but because the prosecution process fails or the weakness being exploited.

I have been through it to know how it works. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Ingenius

[Jman888]

maybe that's why all the lawyers rather go private to make more money than working as a prosecutor

look at CHC case, both side appeal against the sentence but the prosecutor lose.

[Ender]

For the little guys like me, the Parti vs LML scares me.  The MIW said this case show our justice system works. No comfort though, coz it took a lot of hardwork and a dedicated pro bono lawyer to overturn this. The pro bono lawyer had no law clerk to assist him, but Parti was lucky to have volunteers from the NGO to help out. 

[Wind30]

1 hour ago, Vratenza said:

I am a law lay person but I see this example as a failure of the prosecutor to build their case properly before putting forth their case in front of the judge.

TF4's point I believe is that if the prosecutor had done their due diligence with all the state machinery and resources behind them, there should be no real need for prosecutor to appeal any decision made by the presiding judge, assuming all the judge are of a certain standard and calibre.

So you are assuming all the state prosecutors have to be infallible? 
if they can make mistakes, what is wrong to allow an appeal so that mistakes are fixed? 

[Wind30]

1 hour ago, Turboflat4 said:

Don't you make any allowance for false allegations of rape? Just like your claim that the public prosecutor won't "go after you" if you "do things right", I can just as easily assert that a Judge wouldn't have found you innocent without good reason. 

The rest of my points are addressed by what I've said before, Vratenza's reply to you etc. It's an asymmetric and lopsided process. No need to weight things further to the State's advantage, at the risk of someone's freedom and even life. 

My point is similar to what ingenius say, most defendants are not completely innocent. 

false allegations of rape? I thought we are talking about gov going after someone. In the case I quoted, the girl did not alleged she was raped. Gov went after the grab uncle based on evidence. 

 innocent usually just mean cannot be proven guilty… I want to give our public prosecutors a second chance to nail the bad guys…

do you have an example where our public prosecutor went after someone for no good reason? Criminal cases only. My point is most general public don’t have to worry about public prosecutors going after them. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Wind30

[Vratenza]

6 minutes ago, Wind30 said:

So you are assuming all the state prosecutors have to be infallible? 
if they can make mistakes, what is wrong to allow an appeal so that mistakes are fixed? 

I am not assuming. I expect them to be 100% on the job with series of internal balance and checks with proper supervision by an experienced AG before each prosecution case see the light of the court.

their mistakes can mean life or death with very serious consequences for the unfortunate victim/culprit whichever way it goes.

[inlinesix]

10 minutes ago, Vratenza said:

I am not assuming. I expect them to be 100% on the job with series of internal balance and checks with proper supervision by an experienced AG before each prosecution case see the light of the court.

their mistakes can mean life or death with very serious consequences for the unfortunate victim/culprit whichever way it goes.

Parti Liyani is 1 of those cases.

So far, only see the judge get "demoted".

[mersaylee]

12 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

Parti Liyani is 1 of those cases.

So far, only see the judge get "demoted".

It's a judgement call...the force must be strong to enforce and uphold what's under constitutional law...😁

[Wind30]

17 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

Parti Liyani is 1 of those cases.

So far, only see the judge get "demoted".

demoted??

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/senior-judge-of-the-supreme-court-and-2-new-international-judges-appointed

Isn't this a promotion, high court to supreme court???