• 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.

The Death Penalty

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Why is it that when someone plots to kill someone over a specific dispute or reason, he gets the death penalty?
But when a group of person kills someone in a gang beating, the death penalty is usually taken off the table?
Isn't it more likely that the latter will repeat their violent act rather than the former?
 

DerekLeung

Alfrescian
Loyal
Kangaroo court l[COLOR="_______"]ets the gang of murderers go because they afraid the gang will go after him the judge ![/COLOR]
 

sgczar

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why is it that when someone plots to kill someone over a specific dispute or reason, he gets the death penalty?
But when a group of person kills someone in a gang beating, the death penalty is usually taken off the table?
Isn't it more likely that the latter will repeat their violent act rather than the former?

That is usually because it is extremely hard to prove who dealt the fatal blow though it has happened in the past where certain gang members got the death penalty (when it was proven that they were the ones who did the fatal blows or stabbing) and were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code while the rest who were involved got detained under Section 43(1) of Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why is it that when someone plots to kill someone over a specific dispute or reason, he gets the death penalty?
But when a group of person kills someone in a gang beating, the death penalty is usually taken off the table?
Isn't it more likely that the latter will repeat their violent act rather than the former?
Excellent question. Something that has puzzled me for the longest and despite seeking answers have not got a rational reply.

Usually in secret society killings the charge will inevitably be reduced to manslaughter and the guy will get 7 years. The bullshit answer I get is that they cannot pinpoint which person contributed to the fatal wound. For someone reason intention suddenly disappeared.

Let me cite an example - 2 people kill a chap. One grabs him from behind and holds his arms in a grip while the other stabs him repeatedly. So the guy who held him and did not deliver the fatal blow gets away with manslaughter. Obviously not.

The word on the ground of course is that an understanding with secret society bossess has been reached. I know of one Indian Inspector who actually refuses to tow the line and charges the culprits and got them the death penalty.

The worst is that these guys who all end up in Chia Keng Prison, leave with the badge of honour of killing someone as thought it is a PHD in gangland world.

Hope someone can throw some light.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
That is usually because it is extremely hard to prove who dealt the fatal blow though it has happened in the past where certain gang members got the death penalty (when it was proven that they were the ones who did the fatal blows or stabbing) and were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code while the rest who were involved got detained under Section 43(1) of Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act.

With the exception of the Indian Inspector cases, unless my memory fails me, I have not come across one case of gang land murder where a group was involved that resulted in a death sentence. This is despite the fact that the victim had mutiple stab wounds.
 

sgczar

Alfrescian
Loyal
Usually 99% of the time when a Gang Fight occurs, there is no intention of killing.

For Section 302 to stick like glue, common intention to cause death needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that is damn hard to prove.

Your case of a guy who holds the victim while the other one repeatedly stabs him to death, both stabber and the holder will hang; Why? Because the one holding can let go of the victim and stop the stabber but he didn't therefore the "I didn't know he was going to kill him" does not stand. The fact that the stabber continues to stab him to death shows that he has the intention to kill and the chap who continues to hold on to the victim has the intention of not letting him escape. Accessory to Murder carries the same penalty as the Murderer.

Gang Fights on the other hand usually has the common intention to cause hurt; be it grevious or otherwise but nornally without the intent to cause death. Exceptions would be when the victim is down and someone or more than one continues to stab or kick or pulverise the fallen victim till he or she is dead THEN that person or Group who did that would be liable under Section 302 or Section 304 (if homicide cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt) while the rest of the gang will be detain under Criminal Law.

Oh and the part about understanding between the gangland bosses; pure rumour.
 

Zeitgeist

Alfrescian
Loyal
I know of one Indian Inspector who actually refuses to tow the line and charges the culprits and got them the death penalty

Sorry, but isn't it true that investigating officers in charge of the particular murder case case will summit the report to the head of investigations who will then decide whether to forward the recommendation of murder charges to the AG chambers? If the AG concurs, then, and only then will the actual charge of murder be set in motion in the judicial process.

As for secret society related gang killings, I am aware that following the serving of their length of imprisonment, most will continue on, to remanded under the internal security acts for an undetermined period of time. That in itself is an even greater torture than the actual prison term.
 

sgczar

Alfrescian
Loyal
With the exception of the Indian Inspector cases, unless my memory fails me, I have not come across one case of gang land murder where a group was involved that resulted in a death sentence. This is despite the fact that the victim had mutiple stab wounds.

Yes multiple stab wounds but who provided the fatal stab? That is extremely hard to prove. 10 gang members each give one stab you get 10 stabs but that does not mean they have the common intention to cause death.

To cause hurt or grevious hurt yes; death no (most criminal defence lawyers can argue and get away with it).

That is why most gangland murders you see them being detained under Criminal Law which calls for a minimum of 7 years detention without trial.
 

sgczar

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sorry, but isn't it true that investigating officers in charge of the particular murder case case will summit the report to the head of investigations who will then decide whether to forward the recommendation of of murder charges to the AG chambers? If the AG concurs, then, and only then will the actual charge of murder be set in motion in the judicial process.

As for secret society related gang killings, I am aware that following the serving of their length of imprisonment, most will continue on, to remanded under the internal security acts for an undetermined period of time. That in itself is an even greater torture than the actual prison term.

Murder cases are handled by SIS/CID not Police Stations so no Head of Investigations involved and they don't detain them under ISA but under Section 43(1) Criminal Law Temp Provisions Act or as the layman mistakenly calls it Section 55. This is Detention Without Trial which is much worse than the ISA which is mostly for political detainees.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Usually 99% of the time when a Gang Fight occurs, there is no intention of killing..
You gotta be kidding me. With knives, iron rods, swords, bearing scrapper, chains etc. Followed by mutiple stab woods.

For Section 302 to stick like glue, common intention to cause death needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that is damn hard to prove..

I think it applies to all crime cases including simple theft.

Your case of a guy who holds the victim while the other one repeatedly stabs him to death, both stabber and the holder will hang; Why? Because the one holding can let go of the victim and stop the stabber but he didn't therefore the "I didn't know he was going to kill him" does not stand. The fact that the stabber continues to stab him to death shows that he has the intention to kill and the chap who continues to hold on to the victim has the intention of not letting him escape. Accessory to Murder carries the same penalty as the Murderer..

When 6 people surround someone and all armed with offensive weapons, what is the difference?

By the way, there is no such thing as accessory to murder. This is not the US. Its the same punishment if there abetment and the person is at the scene of the crime. Holding a person down while an accomplice does the stabbing does not reduce culpability.

Gang Fights on the other hand usually has the common intention to cause hurt; be it grevious or otherwise but nornally without the intent to cause death. Exceptions would be when the victim is down and someone or more than one continues to stab or kick or pulverise the fallen victim till he or she is dead THEN that person or Group who did that would be liable under Section 302 or Section 304 (if homicide cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt) while the rest of the gang will be detain under Criminal Law.

Oh and the part about understanding between the gangland bosses; pure rumour.

You still did not cite a single hanging case. Also note that you moved from your original premise of that "fatal wound" to "beyond reasonable doubt".

The only good thing has been the use of CLTP to put away the gangs.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sorry, but isn't it true that investigating officers in charge of the particular murder case case will summit the report to the head of investigations who will then decide whether to forward the recommendation of murder charges to the AG chambers? If the AG concurs, then, and only then will the actual charge of murder be set in motion in the judicial process..

Investigating Officers will normally prefer the charge in court without consulting AG Chambers. Only when they need to downgrade a charge or withdraw it do they go to chambers. This is to avoid corruption. Certain scheduled offences must have clearence/sanction from Chambers before the person can be charged in court.

Decision however is based heavily on what appears in Investigation File.

As for secret society related gang killings, I am aware that following the serving of their length of imprisonment, most will continue on, to remanded under the internal security acts for an undetermined period of time. That in itself is an even greater torture than the actual prison term.

If a person is charged in court and sentenced, he cannot be detained under CLTP. Its one or the other. Usually secret society members are detained for a period of time that corresponds with what normal sentence would apply if charged in court except for murder where the detention tends to be between 4 to 7 years (they follow manslaughter sentencing guidelines). There are also other offences that CLTP can be used - gang rape, kidnapping, drug trafficking etc. Minister of Home Affairs must sign detention order.

CLTP is used when witnesses fear to testify against the accused in court or where accomplices implicate their mates. Their witness accounts/statements however will be used to detemine detention.

In the curry powder murder case, the charge was withdrawn and they were detained under CLTP. As the crime scene was years ago and no evidence could be found, they implicated one another but would not testify in court despite offer of immunity to the least culpable.
 

Zeitgeist

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro Scroobal

It just goes to show, one can really get away with murder in Singapore after all. For plunder, well we all know how legal it is!
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro Scroobal

It just goes to show, one can really get away with murder in Singapore after all. For plunder, well we all know how legal it is!


I suppose handling secret society cases has always been difficult with no witnesses dare to testify and none of those involved prepared to implicate each other. And maybe DNA and forensics were not that flash at that time. The culprits invariably all plead guilty to a reduced manslaughter charge as bargain. The victim/s being gang members society did bother society as well. In the end it ended up as a routine.

Ever heard of secret society murders - many
Ever heard of secret society murders going to trial - only one that I know of involving Indians in a case. I remember these chaps came from 40SAR.

Maybe others can remember better.
 
Last edited:

Zeitgeist

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro scroobal
I'll bet my last bottom dollar that if it a scion of a top level MIW who gets killed in the afore discussed manner, it will be murder and finally the rope for every last one of them!
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Usually 99% of the time when a Gang Fight occurs, there is no intention of killing.

For Section 302 to stick like glue, common intention to cause death needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that is damn hard to prove.

Your case of a guy who holds the victim while the other one repeatedly stabs him to death, both stabber and the holder will hang; Why? Because the one holding can let go of the victim and stop the stabber but he didn't therefore the "I didn't know he was going to kill him" does not stand. The fact that the stabber continues to stab him to death shows that he has the intention to kill and the chap who continues to hold on to the victim has the intention of not letting him escape. Accessory to Murder carries the same penalty as the Murderer.

Gang Fights on the other hand usually has the common intention to cause hurt; be it grevious or otherwise but nornally without the intent to cause death. Exceptions would be when the victim is down and someone or more than one continues to stab or kick or pulverise the fallen victim till he or she is dead THEN that person or Group who did that would be liable under Section 302 or Section 304 (if homicide cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt) while the rest of the gang will be detain under Criminal Law.

Oh and the part about understanding between the gangland bosses; pure rumour.
I don't think that the question of "premeditated intent" should be the only criteria to ascertain if a murder charge and a death penalty should be imposed.
For gang members who didn't intend to kill their victim, but intended to give him a good beating for their own ego or to show him who's boss, is it right that they continue to go around with no intent of killing but with the intent of giving others a good beating?
Are they less dangerous than someone who because of one specific incident or dispute, killed someone with intent?
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Excellent question. Something that has puzzled me for the longest and despite seeking answers have not got a rational reply.

Usually in secret society killings the charge will inevitably be reduced to manslaughter and the guy will get 7 years. The bullshit answer I get is that they cannot pinpoint which person contributed to the fatal wound. For someone reason intention suddenly disappeared.

Let me cite an example - 2 people kill a chap. One grabs him from behind and holds his arms in a grip while the other stabs him repeatedly. So the guy who held him and did not deliver the fatal blow gets away with manslaughter. Obviously not.

The word on the ground of course is that an understanding with secret society bossess has been reached. I know of one Indian Inspector who actually refuses to tow the line and charges the culprits and got them the death penalty.

The worst is that these guys who all end up in Chia Keng Prison, leave with the badge of honour of killing someone as thought it is a PHD in gangland world.

Hope someone can throw some light.
You mentioned about having tried to seek answers. Can you share who you asked?
I'm thinking of calling someone from the relevant civil service authority, do you think there is any chance that they will take such a call and such a question from a lesser mortal?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
You mentioned about having tried to seek answers. Can you share who you asked?
I'm thinking of calling someone from the relevant civil service authority, do you think there is any chance that they will take such a call and such a question from a lesser mortal?

Its something that some members of the legal fraternity and informed members within a circle that I know have spoken about on a number of occasions. Usually the catalyst is the morning's paper reporting that a number of ss members involved in a murder case pleading guilty to manslaugter.

I doubt you will get answers because each case is different and perogative lies with DPP based on the subjective nature of each case.

A better way is for a press reporter or someone doing social/law research to unearth the facts. It is actually not hard - all cases from 1980 to 1995 where charges of manslaughter were preferred and the accused persons pleaded guilty and where more than 2 persons were involved. These are emprical facts and believe me, who ever sees the data will probably faint. With such data, AG and Home Affairs will need to come out with a story that only Disneyland can match.

By the way, these chaps use to end at the same place - Chia Keng Prison

Frankly I was delighted that you raised this as it has bothered me for a very long time.
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Its something that some members of the legal fraternity and informed members within a circle that I know have spoken about on a number of occasions. Usually the catalyst is the morning's paper reporting that a number of ss members involved in a murder case pleading guilty to manslaugter.

I doubt you will get answers because each case is different and perogative lies with DPP based on the subjective nature of each case.

A better way is for a press reporter or someone doing social/law research to unearth the facts. It is actually not hard - all cases from 1980 to 1995 where charges of manslaughter were preferred and the accused persons pleaded guilty and where more than 2 persons were involved. These are emprical facts and believe me, who ever sees the data will probably faint. With such data, AG and Home Affairs will need to come out with a story that only Disneyland can match.

By the way, these chaps use to end at the same place - Chia Keng Prison

Frankly I was delighted that you raised this as it has bothered me for a very long time.
This has bothered me for a long time too.
I have 2 things for your advice / comment.
Firstly, how would a person be able to obtain facts, information and reports about such cases? Would appreciate if if you can be more specific and not just reply by saying from the newspapers or at the library.
Secondly, I don't think all such cases involve gangs or secret societies. Some of them merely involve a group of friends or acquaintances, not necessarily gang members. I think most people know the recent case, but I can remember 2 others from past newspaper reports.
One was a case at Clarke Quay where a man was beaten up and died as a result. In this case, there was an altercation between him and his group of attackers, he was alledged to have laid his hand on somebody's neck. Hence it may have been deemed that he had provoked the attack.
Another case was one which took place at the void deck of a block of hdb flats. It was reported that a man had asked a group of men to lower their voices in the early hours of the morning. They beat him up and he died as a result. I don't recall any mention of what he said, how he said it or whether there was any altercation or deemed provocation.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
This has bothered me for a long time too.

The instances that I raised are confined to secret society cases. They also involved weapons. The cases that you refer to may not fall into this category. Usually assault without weapons does not go down the path of murder, attempted murder or even manslaughter. The worst case scenario for the assailants are causing grevious hurt even when death occurs.

I see a pattern in the secret society cases thus my interest.

If I get your drift, loss of life must carry enforcement priority and the punishment must commensurate with the crime. The perception (and in reality) however this may differ and I feel that this is the case.

Interestingly Singapore has the toughest laws where violence is carried out in conjunction with a crime such as robbery, housebreaking etc where mandatory punishments is stiff. However if you decide to bash someone to death for staring at you, the Police, AG Chambers and the courts seem to be at a loss. I am therefore not surprised that the situation carries on.

I suppose a bank robbery where firearms are discharged followed by a movie getaway is more sexy to investigate, more sexy for the press to carve out the headlines and for the public to follow. The guy will certainly be hanged even though now one died or got hurt. On the other hand , someone bashed to death for wearing bad clothes and staring falls drammatically down the fashion ladder of crime, enforcement and punishment.

My guess is when a nephew or niece of a high ranking official falls victim, then the laws will be adjusted. When Seng Han Tong was punched in the 1st assault, they immediately increased simple assault to a drammatic 10 years jail with a condition for public servant or something along those lines.

Access to data is available via the courts but it will be challenging. A person well versed in research such as a academic or journalist is best at it. Access to the actual investigation files requires permission from Commissioner of Police. To my knowledge, only Sumiko ( and you know why) was ever given that permission. Even Alex Josey had only access to courts records when he wrote his book despite being old man's press secretary in the early years.
 
Top