so he can be questions young or old.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Should there be a legal age to be questioned by the Police?
- Thread starter chittychitty
- Start date
so he can be questions young or old.
Confessions are an inherently unreliable form of evidence. That is why the common law imposes restictions on their use to obtain convictions.
There could a thousand and one reasons why someone will confess to something they didn't do, such as:
- can't stand the stress of interrogation and hope the immediate pain will go away
- police offered him ice cream if he confessed
- if he told the truth, the real culprit will come after him and that culprit is with him everyday in the classroom
- blah, blah, blah ........
The police could also have used unnecessary force because they are fucking lazy and wanted to get the investigation over with so they can go and play hide and seek with Ah Neh rioters in Little India, watch 48:00 to 53:00 of this video for an example of police incompetence:
[video=youtube;4eOOz39iA_Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eOOz39iA_Y[/video]
If a kid kills an adult, and you cannot question the kid, then how?
People so fast forget wife murderer Lek something hired teens to kill his wife.
This article, only the first few paragraphs of which are cut-and-paste here, with the full article available at the link below, should be mandatory reading for all Sinkie parents, teachers and students, after this sorry incident which shows to one and all what a fucked up police force Sinkieland has. The issue is not whether a minor can be questioned or not, but the conditions under which he should be questioned because of the inherent vulnerabilities of a child.
Article:
Prior articles in this publication on interrogation have explored civil liability issues arising from intentional violations of Miranda rights, coercive interrogation techniques, and the questioning of minors in abuse investigations in which they are the suspected victims of abuse.
Courts have recognized that the interrogation of minors in the context of criminal investigations or juvenile delinquency investigations raise special concerns about the capacity of the child to understand the consequences of making a statement. Minors may have a special susceptibility to threats, intimidation, unrealistic promises of leniency, or a juvenile desire to please an adult interrogator.
Indeed, a questioned minor may have a tendency to tell interrogators what they seem to want to hear, regardless of its truth or falsity. This is particularly the case in the absence of the guidance of a familiar parent, guardian, attorney or other adult.
Courts are concerned, in all interrogations, with seeing to it that incriminating statements elicited are made voluntarily, and that waivers of the privilege against self incrimination, or of the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney are also knowing and voluntary. But they become even more concerned about these issues when juveniles are being questioned.
It can be generally stated that juveniles are supposed to be afforded greater protection during questioning than adults because they are thought to be inherently more susceptible to psychological pressure from adults, especially authority figures, including police officers.
http://www.aele.org/law/2010all07/2010-07MLJ101.pdf
Article:
Prior articles in this publication on interrogation have explored civil liability issues arising from intentional violations of Miranda rights, coercive interrogation techniques, and the questioning of minors in abuse investigations in which they are the suspected victims of abuse.
Courts have recognized that the interrogation of minors in the context of criminal investigations or juvenile delinquency investigations raise special concerns about the capacity of the child to understand the consequences of making a statement. Minors may have a special susceptibility to threats, intimidation, unrealistic promises of leniency, or a juvenile desire to please an adult interrogator.
Indeed, a questioned minor may have a tendency to tell interrogators what they seem to want to hear, regardless of its truth or falsity. This is particularly the case in the absence of the guidance of a familiar parent, guardian, attorney or other adult.
Courts are concerned, in all interrogations, with seeing to it that incriminating statements elicited are made voluntarily, and that waivers of the privilege against self incrimination, or of the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney are also knowing and voluntary. But they become even more concerned about these issues when juveniles are being questioned.
It can be generally stated that juveniles are supposed to be afforded greater protection during questioning than adults because they are thought to be inherently more susceptible to psychological pressure from adults, especially authority figures, including police officers.
http://www.aele.org/law/2010all07/2010-07MLJ101.pdf
Last edited:
Yes, sue the fucking Sinkie Polis:
In Crowe v. County of San Diego, #05-55467, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 894 (9th Cir.), a 14-year-old boy, one of the plaintiffs, allegedly falsely confessed to murdering his younger sister, following a series of "coercive" and "grueling" interrogations. He and his accused 15-year-old accomplice, who also sued, were allegedly isolated and subjected to many hours and days of questioning, during which time they were lied to, threatened, cajoled, and pressured by teams of police officers.
A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the defendant police detectives, finding that such tactics, if true, violated the Fifth Amendment, and also "shock the conscience" in violation of substantive due process. 'Psychological torture' is not an inapt description," the court stated.
The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims relating to the interrogations, which allegedly resulted in coerced statements used in various proceedings. A vagrant who suffers from schizophrenia was later convicted of voluntary manslaughter in connection with the sister's death after the sister's DNA was found on one of his shirts.
http://www.aele.org/law/2010all07/2010-07MLJ101.pdf
In Crowe v. County of San Diego, #05-55467, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 894 (9th Cir.), a 14-year-old boy, one of the plaintiffs, allegedly falsely confessed to murdering his younger sister, following a series of "coercive" and "grueling" interrogations. He and his accused 15-year-old accomplice, who also sued, were allegedly isolated and subjected to many hours and days of questioning, during which time they were lied to, threatened, cajoled, and pressured by teams of police officers.
A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the defendant police detectives, finding that such tactics, if true, violated the Fifth Amendment, and also "shock the conscience" in violation of substantive due process. 'Psychological torture' is not an inapt description," the court stated.
The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims relating to the interrogations, which allegedly resulted in coerced statements used in various proceedings. A vagrant who suffers from schizophrenia was later convicted of voluntary manslaughter in connection with the sister's death after the sister's DNA was found on one of his shirts.
http://www.aele.org/law/2010all07/2010-07MLJ101.pdf
yes. sue the farking police and principal and MOE.
in the first place the police does NOT have the power to arrest the boy from school. Was there a warrant of arrest??? if there isn't they can only ask the boy or his parents to turn up at the police station for an interview. their arrest was too high handed. you cannot arrest someone on the spot just based on suspicions or CCTV footage as in this case. unless the crime was done at the same time on the spot and the police witness it or there is eyewitness or an immediate life is in danger none of the situation of which exists in this case. their version of interview sounds more like an interrogation. that arrests was high handed based on their suspicions but they are not AG chambers and no definite charge was levied yet.
see reference:
http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/forPubl...gationYou.aspx
http://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-...-in-singapore/
an investigating officer are as follows:
To order a person to go to a police station or other place for questioning and for taking of a statement; etc
,Only in serious crime can an arrest be made without a warrant i.e. an arrest can be made without the need for a warrant when the police officer reasonably suspects a man of committing a serious offence. Such offences include rape, robbery, theft, drug consumption or causing serious hurt. molest is not calssified as serious crime here
For non-arrestable offences however, warrants will have to be made out to allow the police to make an arrest. For example, when a police report is made regarding a case of voluntarily causing hurt, the police will conduct investigations first before deciding whether to issue a warrant of arrest.
there is no mention of arrest warrant for this boy when they go to the school to establish the identity of the suspected molester and arrest him on the spot based on some CCTV photos of someone who bear his similarity. It could jolly well be anyone else who bear a similarity or resemblance. who knows it could be a case of mistaken identity as the boy seems so fed up taht he mentioned" since you say I did it, so be it" . those words seemed to be a sign of resignation of a depressed person after being hounded many times to confess to his guilt.
according to legal laws stated in websites: quote
"Upon arrival at the police station or detention centre, the accused is allowed to consult a lawyer while under police custody within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution. Family members may also be contacted through reasonable means. However, these requests may be refused if they interfere with investigations. The accused will usually be detained for 48 hours at most, but police can obtain a Magistrate’s order to extend the custody.
The police may require the person to make either a witness statement or a notice statement. A notice statement is required when police have decided to press charges against the accused. Before the police requests for a notice statement, a notice regarding the charge will be given to the accused in writing and read out to him: this is what I belived happened in the police station and probably what terrified the kid till he decide to kill himself out of fear.
this boy was denied access to a lawyer in contravening Article 9 of the Constitution and made to sign a statement in the ABSCENCE of legal guidance. what does a 14 yr old kid know about Article 9 of the Constitution? I bet 99.9999% of all adults does not even know such a right exists, more so a school kid!!!!!
farking bastard high handed cops and useless MOE
if any of you forumers have any conscience, please contact the parents or his relatives or highlight this fact it in other forums till someone sits up and take notice and let them know that the 5 cops have made a huge huge blunder and they should seek legal redress and clear the boy's name/honour.
farking useless cops and MOE teachers/principal hope karma strikes soon. mark my words
this whole episode is nothing but highlights how stupid, heartless, and selfish the mindset of alot of these cops and teachers/principal/MOE officials. hope the kid come back and haunt them
in the first place the police does NOT have the power to arrest the boy from school. Was there a warrant of arrest??? if there isn't they can only ask the boy or his parents to turn up at the police station for an interview. their arrest was too high handed. you cannot arrest someone on the spot just based on suspicions or CCTV footage as in this case. unless the crime was done at the same time on the spot and the police witness it or there is eyewitness or an immediate life is in danger none of the situation of which exists in this case. their version of interview sounds more like an interrogation. that arrests was high handed based on their suspicions but they are not AG chambers and no definite charge was levied yet.
see reference:
http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/forPubl...gationYou.aspx
http://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-...-in-singapore/
an investigating officer are as follows:
To order a person to go to a police station or other place for questioning and for taking of a statement; etc
,Only in serious crime can an arrest be made without a warrant i.e. an arrest can be made without the need for a warrant when the police officer reasonably suspects a man of committing a serious offence. Such offences include rape, robbery, theft, drug consumption or causing serious hurt. molest is not calssified as serious crime here
For non-arrestable offences however, warrants will have to be made out to allow the police to make an arrest. For example, when a police report is made regarding a case of voluntarily causing hurt, the police will conduct investigations first before deciding whether to issue a warrant of arrest.
there is no mention of arrest warrant for this boy when they go to the school to establish the identity of the suspected molester and arrest him on the spot based on some CCTV photos of someone who bear his similarity. It could jolly well be anyone else who bear a similarity or resemblance. who knows it could be a case of mistaken identity as the boy seems so fed up taht he mentioned" since you say I did it, so be it" . those words seemed to be a sign of resignation of a depressed person after being hounded many times to confess to his guilt.
according to legal laws stated in websites: quote
"Upon arrival at the police station or detention centre, the accused is allowed to consult a lawyer while under police custody within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution. Family members may also be contacted through reasonable means. However, these requests may be refused if they interfere with investigations. The accused will usually be detained for 48 hours at most, but police can obtain a Magistrate’s order to extend the custody.
The police may require the person to make either a witness statement or a notice statement. A notice statement is required when police have decided to press charges against the accused. Before the police requests for a notice statement, a notice regarding the charge will be given to the accused in writing and read out to him: this is what I belived happened in the police station and probably what terrified the kid till he decide to kill himself out of fear.
this boy was denied access to a lawyer in contravening Article 9 of the Constitution and made to sign a statement in the ABSCENCE of legal guidance. what does a 14 yr old kid know about Article 9 of the Constitution? I bet 99.9999% of all adults does not even know such a right exists, more so a school kid!!!!!
farking bastard high handed cops and useless MOE
if any of you forumers have any conscience, please contact the parents or his relatives or highlight this fact it in other forums till someone sits up and take notice and let them know that the 5 cops have made a huge huge blunder and they should seek legal redress and clear the boy's name/honour.
farking useless cops and MOE teachers/principal hope karma strikes soon. mark my words
this whole episode is nothing but highlights how stupid, heartless, and selfish the mindset of alot of these cops and teachers/principal/MOE officials. hope the kid come back and haunt them
Last edited:
You are one of the kind ... that why you are the boss , pun unintended.
this shows our Singapore police force is extremely effective at solving crimes and seeking confessions when dealing with sinkie suspects and criminals.however when it comes to dealing with anglo saxon caucasian white males,expats and diplomats,they are required to practise maximum restraint and care to avoid use of police brutality.
It should be based on the legal age of the individual, if the individual still need parents' or guardians' approval in participating in school's events or activities,
and if that individual is suspected of committing something against the state or law, the parents or guardians should be present as well during any interrogation
or interviews conducted by the authority.
If anyone is stupid enough to confess to something they did not do then they deserve the consequences.The crime of stupidity must be severely punished.
Chia Thye Poh confess he was not a Communist yet Lky lock him up at Moon Crescent for 32 yrs.
Similar threads
