• XENNEC Camera Bags GIVE AWAY - SHARE & TAG your Friend to WIN one XENNEC Stylish bags. Visit this thread thread for more information.

Singapore court - getting lenient?


Status
Not open for further replies.

pcwe68

New Member
Jul 3, 2003
306
0
0
HOME
Visit site
#1
http://www.938live.sg/ListDetail.as...1&Diff=0&Catgrp=News&Start_Date=20051202#4961

Three footballers get probation for sex with minor

Three footballers who had sex with a 12 year old girl have been given probation sentences instead of jail terms.

Muhammad Taufiq Mansor, Syed Hashreen and Muhammad Noor Kamurudiin were ordered to serve 18 months probation.

The three had sex with the 12 year old girl in a toilet cubicle at Bedok Town Park in September last year.

In passing sentence, District Judge Wong Choon Ning said the conduct of the three had been most shameful and wrong.

She also asked the three footballers to think of the shame they brought on their parents.

The footballers had said in their mitigation that the girl had consented to have sex with them.

But the Judge pointed out that under the law it is irrelevant if the girl gave her consent to have sex.

Judge Wong said girls under 16 are deemed by the law to be incapable of giving valid consent to a sexual act.

Under such circumstances the judge added that the law places the onus on males to exercise "restraint and discipline".

National Under 18 player Syed Shafreen Syed Kassim was also involved in this case.

But Judge Wong did not sentence him yet as she wanted to find out more details about his performance in school.

Shafreen is expected to be sentenced next week.

As for the three footballers, if they successfully complete their probation orders, the Judge said they will not have a criminal record.




Sending wrong messages to the public.....probation and no criminal record after that.
 

DT_

New Member
Nov 4, 2005
883
0
0
#3
:what:
 

#6
Not taking the side of the guys but these kinds of cases are getting more and more common place and sometimes, its the girls who are the ones who start the whole thing.

I'm not saying its all the girl's fault but I don't know what to think any more when I read that an underage girl asked her boyfriend to pimp her out to his friends and then report all of them to the police after she did it. :dunno:
 

Hoky

New Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,182
0
0
Singapore
hoky.multiply.com
#8
Well, the past killer maids cases: they don't get life or death sentences.
How strict can they get with 'petty cases'?

One thing is for sure, if you smuggle drugs, that's definitely strict.

By the way, the maids are being well fed and paid small allowances for their stay in prison.
(Ain't it different / maybe better than being a maid)
 

Hoky

New Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,182
0
0
Singapore
hoky.multiply.com
#9
Hoky said:
Well, the past killer maids cases: they don't get life or death sentences.
How strict can they get with 'petty cases'?

One thing is for sure, if you smuggle drugs, that's definitely strict.

By the way, the maids are being well fed and paid small allowances for their stay in prison.
(Ain't it different / maybe better than being a maid)
To all maids reading this thread: I'm not encouraging you to kill your employers. :nono:
 

pcwe68

New Member
Jul 3, 2003
306
0
0
HOME
Visit site
#10
Precisely because it getting common, so all the more the message should be that it is wrong/illegal to have sex with minor, simple as that. (minor may be gullible thinking that that's the way to prove love).

even the US (being so liberal) is strict about this.....there was this case about a teacher having a relationship with her lover student and was jailed for 7 years (gave birth to their child in prison). Was released recently and as the boy now is above 21, they are married now.

Seriously bad judgement, the law is put in place to protect the minor, there should not be any way of interpretation, no matter what circumstances (even if girl/boy is the blamed). THE ADULT SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS WRONG. I will be very surprise if there are no women rights groups in Singapore raising concern about this. I wonder will the female MPs raise this up in parliament.

I tot the CJ was very strict, looks like he has relaxed the singapore courts recently.
 

Mar 22, 2005
434
0
16
#13
Depends on the judge actually. We citizens have little say in these kind of matters. The most we can do is just complain and talk. Just like Melvyn Tan... What to do- If you find it unfair then too bad. We just dun have a choice!
 

hwchoy

Senior Member
Jul 16, 2003
1,899
0
0
56
Tampines, Singapore.
www.hexazona.com
#14
pcwe68 said:
Seriously bad judgement, the law is put in place to protect the minor, there should not be any way of interpretation, no matter what circumstances (even if girl/boy is the blamed). THE ADULT SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS WRONG. I will be very surprise if there are no women rights groups in Singapore raising concern about this. I wonder will the female MPs raise this up in parliament.
only in this case all parties concerned are minor/sub-adults.
 

pcwe68

New Member
Jul 3, 2003
306
0
0
HOME
Visit site
#15
It seems that there is 1 in the under 18 team, so he ought to be above 16 years. No mention of which court (juvenile?) they are in, anyway the judge did mention that the male are responsible for it as long as the girl is below 16.

Anyway, when their names are mentioned in newapaper, it simply means they are above 16.
There are boys home etc that they can be sentenced to.

I think age 16 is the magic number, once you are above it you are no longer a minor.

So basically, by just saying that they are young, is the court setting a milestone decision that says that though youth sex is not acceptable but punishment is light, just a little inconvenience to the sex offenders.

(remember the infamous Michael Fay, i believe he is 18 when he is sentenced to jail and caning for vandalism), sex offenders are punished lighter than vandals? Do we value cars and properties more the young ones (I mean human)?

Anyway, my point is that the court seems to be getting too lenient nowadays.
 

BBTM

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2004
2,223
6
38
BB West
#16
If the girl is that innocent, she should cry rape and not on whether she agreed on having sex with those guys or not. If she is under age n willing to have sex with other, she should be the one who been charge, not the guy. Some girls like to lie abt their age n get the guy into trouble. Sex really :devil: , do it with your love one, not with any other. :nono:
 

icarus

Senior Member
Jan 27, 2002
3,874
0
36
East
#17
Looks like our Singapore football team has been scoring! Goal 2010 here we come! :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

mattlock

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2004
1,871
0
0
www.superhyperreal.com
#18
I don't think anything should be seen in just terms of black and white. There may be various factors involved in this situation that we are unaware of that led to the judge's decision.
I can think of worse things than having consensual sex with a minor. I know many kids who are legally underaged having sex. I'm not gonna scream out for them to be thrown in jail and for them to have their futures destroyed.
It's easy to be righteous when you're not the one who's being charged.
 

pcwe68

New Member
Jul 3, 2003
306
0
0
HOME
Visit site
#19
mattlock said:
I don't think anything should be seen in just terms of black and white. There may be various factors involved in this situation that we are unaware of that led to the judge's decision.
I can think of worse things than having consensual sex with a minor. I know many kids who are legally underaged having sex. I'm not gonna scream out for them to be thrown in jail and for them to have their futures destroyed.
It's easy to be righteous when you're not the one who's being charged.
I don't think its a point about being righteous. The law are put in place to protect underage (girls). They can be manipulated to agreeing (though may not be in this case) to sex. But as the law says, as long as the girl is underage, the man is held responsible for it. Even in US (where it is liberal), sex with underage is serious offence. Again, vandals are not ok, but sex offenders are? looks like car and buildings are more important than protection for the young.
 

Hommie

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2004
925
0
0
Singapore
#20
pcwe68 said:
It seems that there is 1 in the under 18 team, so he ought to be above 16 years. No mention of which court (juvenile?) they are in, anyway the judge did mention that the male are responsible for it as long as the girl is below 16.

Anyway, when their names are mentioned in newapaper, it simply means they are above 16.
There are boys home etc that they can be sentenced to.

I think age 16 is the magic number, once you are above it you are no longer a minor.

So basically, by just saying that they are young, is the court setting a milestone decision that says that though youth sex is not acceptable but punishment is light, just a little inconvenience to the sex offenders.

(remember the infamous Michael Fay, i believe he is 18 when he is sentenced to jail and caning for vandalism), sex offenders are punished lighter than vandals? Do we value cars and properties more the young ones (I mean human)?

Anyway, my point is that the court seems to be getting too lenient nowadays.
Its not beening too lenient that I am concern of, its the inconsistency. Earlier cases's sentences was far harsher.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom