By Reason Of Insanity

[jw5]

Seevral years ago, a married woman induced her teenage lover to kill her husband. She was sentenced to 9 years jail for her crime.
I just discovered from watching a tv documentary why her sentence was relatively light, considering that this case was quite similar to Anthony Ler's. In fact if you consider that a teenage lover was involved, it was probably more heinous. The victim husband was probably not a great person, but that's not the point. She was diagnosed to have a depressive disorder at that time.

Strange isn't it? A depressive order, but instead of killing herself, she chose to get her teenage lover to kill her husband.

These days, it's also quite common to read about people raping, molesting or abusing children, and using mental disorders as a defence or mitigating factor. As if normal people with no disorders do such things.

For minor crimes like shoplifting or indecent exposure, etc, I can understand if they use these as mitigation, don't even care in fact. But don't see why the victim of murder or rape has to pay the price for their mental disorders. If a killer, rapist, child molester or abuser has a mental disorder, he or she should pay for it, just as if he or she did not have it or were not "diagnosed with it". In other words, too bad or tough luck.

 

[Alamaking]

If I'm not wrong, malay woman right? or indian? maybe the husband was abusive.... but i agree with you, 9 nears too short....

 

[Unrepented]

OR by reason of "post natal depression".

 

[kryonlight]

Yes, it's insane. That's why I believe in kamma. The courts of justice can only go so far.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

OR by reason of "post natal depression".

After more than a decade from giving birth...

 

[Unrepented]

Court of Law izit Justice is an elusive concept.

Yes, it's insane. That's why I believe in kamma. The courts of justice can only go so far.

 

[kryonlight]

Court of Law izit Justice is an elusive concept.

It's elusive, that's why it can only go so far.

 

[jw5]

If I'm not wrong, malay woman right? or indian? maybe the husband was abusive.... but i agree with you, 9 nears too short....

Before watching the tv programme, I thought that the mitigation factor could have been the husband was abusive, but no mention of that in the programme. Instead, it stated 9 years jail sentence followed by diagnosed with a depressive disorder, as if this was the reason for the lighter sentence.

 

[jw5]

OR by reason of "post natal depression".

After more than a decade from giving birth...

Did not read about any child in the news reports or tv programme.
The couple may not have had any children, but I'm not sure about this.

 

[Raiders]

If you notice in almost any type of crimes commuted by women in Singapore, their sentence has always been relatively light compared to the men. Remember that babe who like to shoplift? How many times were she let off? Her eventual sentence was not that heavy also.

 

[breaknews]

As society progress it is natural for punishment to be as light as possible.

If you like barbaric laws you should try living in Islamic societies!

They bloody hell chop off your hands just because you stole food to feed your family in mama shop.

9 years is too short? You try to stay in prison for at least a day, withOut Internet..etc.

See if you will die of boredom.

Anyway we are just commentators or observers we are not direct players of such unfortunate incident which we couldn't fully comprehend or understand what they have been through!

Should we be so judgemental in courts decisions?

Why do we feel good when someone we don't know or even care about gets extra punishment?

Is there a character flaws in our own pitiful soul?

 

[Ramseth]

Our common law is based on mens rea et actus reus, i.e. two elements of guilty mind and guilty act coming together to result in the criminal act.

One element missing or weakly proved may result in migitation or even acquittal. For example, you point a dagger at me or another victim, I was a police officer armed with revolver and shot you dead. Both intention and action were to kill but it wasn't of guilty mind or act. Acquittal by self-defense or in defense of innocent public.

However, had I quarreled with you over personal matters and pulled out my revolver to intimidate you ending up pulling the trigger, that's murder, even for police.

Therefore, if the accused isn't of sound mind at the moment of the act, however guilty, how can the accused be of guilty mind? The accussed is of unsound mind.

 

[jw5]

If you notice in almost any type of crimes commuted by women in Singapore, their sentence has always been relatively light compared to the men. Remember that babe who like to shoplift? How many times were she let off? Her eventual sentence was not that heavy also.

The AG at that time Walter Woon appealed against the sentence, but the ruling was upheld.
It does seem as if women get lighter.

As for the babe who shoplifted, don't really bother about her case.
Minor crime.

 

[laksaboy]

The AG at that time Walter Woon appealed against the sentence, but the ruling was upheld.
It does seem as if women get lighter.

It is a fact that women get lighter sentencing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore#Prison_caning

Exemptions
None of the following may be sentenced to caning:

Women
Men sentenced to death
Men above 50
Anyone who is found to be medically unfit for caning

Gender equality, my arse!

 

[jw5]

Therefore, if the accused isn't of sound mind at the moment of the act, however guilty, how can the accused be of guilty mind? The accussed is of unsound mind.

The police officer case is obviously justified. Gang fights or affrays which result in deaths should also be murder.

The problem could be whether these culprits really have a mental disorder or not.
Even if they do, I'm suggesting that if they commit a serious crime like rape or murder, it should not be used as mitigation. Let's just say that they had the intention to kill with an unsound mind. It's simply unfortunate for them that they had the disorder and this should apply to all. Instead of saying that the victims were unfortunate for meeting the person with the disorder.

 

[erection2015]

to extrapolate....be very careful tony and clinton dont get to know who you actually are. They may rape/murder you and then plead insanity. Their posts

in this forum are clear enough evidence of how mentally unhinged they are.

These days, it's also quite common to read about people raping, molesting or abusing children, and using mental disorders as a defence or mitigating factor. As if normal people with no disorders do such things.

 

[groober2011]

The police officer case is obviously justified. Gang fights or affrays which result in deaths should also be murder.

The problem could be whether these culprits really have a mental disorder or not.
Even if they do, I'm suggesting that if they commit a serious crime like rape or murder, it should not be used as mitigation. Let's just say that they had the intention to kill with an unsound mind. It's simply unfortunate for them that they had the disorder and this should apply to all. Instead of saying that the victims were unfortunate for meeting the person with the disorder.

WE cannot have a one size fits all justice. There are certain mitigating factors in many cases. I am not saying all of them and certainly there are those that try to take advantage of it.

You need to know that some people are just not normal and they commit acts because they are affected by having an unsound mind. Not all crimes committed are premeditated. In meting out justice, it must also be tempered by compassion.

 

[jw5]

You need to know that some people are just not normal and they commit acts because they are affected by having an unsound mind. Not all crimes committed are premeditated. In meting out justice, it must also be tempered by compassion.

I agree, but I'm saying too bad or tough luck about that for the killer or rapist.
And it should apply to all.
More concerned about compassion for the victim, when he did not initiate the problem or contribute to it.
Premedition should not always be a prerequisite for murder, many fights resulting in death did not start with the intention to kill. But they almost always started with the intention to hurt or bully.
Too bad for the killer that it ended with a death. Should not be "too bad for the victim".

 

[Ramseth]

The police officer case is obviously justified. Gang fights or affrays which result in deaths should also be murder.

The problem could be whether these culprits really have a mental disorder or not.
Even if they do, I'm suggesting that if they commit a serious crime like rape or murder, it should not be used as mitigation. Let's just say that they had the intention to kill with an unsound mind. It's simply unfortunate for them that they had the disorder and this should apply to all. Instead of saying that the victims were unfortunate for meeting the person with the disorder.

Riots (gangfights) and affrays causing death may be culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder (manslaughter) depending on the circumstances, weapons prepared and used. By medical and legal definition, an unsound mind can't have intention, just random action. If it comes to violence causing injury up to causing death, it's just confinement in IMH, no murder verdict, no death sentence. Unsound mind can also be pleaded in case of outrage of modesty (random action causing the victim to feel molested but there's no intention of molestation), but nobody can plead insanity for rape, for which the intention of seeking carnal pleasure without consent but by force is already self-evident. If you could commit rape, you couldn't be of unsound mind, just of criminally lustful mind and acted on it.

 

[groober2011]

I agree, but I'm saying too bad or tough luck about that for the killer or rapist.
And it should apply to all.
More concerned about compassion for the victim, when he did not initiate the problem or contribute to it.
Premedition should not always be a prerequisite for murder, many fights resulting in death did not start with the intention to kill. But they almost always started with the intention to hurt or bully.
Too bad for the killer that it ended with a death. Should not be "too bad for the victim".

It is semantics here. If someone of unsound mind runs amok and start killing everyone on sight, then what will you call it? He escapes the death sentence but the victims are dead. Will it be too bad for the killer or too bad for the victim for being at the wrong place at the wrong time?