Guilt By Association

[jw5]

Teenaged gang members slashing and killing other teenaged gang members or others in full view of the public.

Relatives harbouring and abetting the escape of a terrorist who planned to kill many innocent people.

Perhaps it's time to introduce provisions in the law to make people guilty by association.
Not just morally guilty of bringing up children who kill people or guilty of merely harbouring a terrorist who planned to kill thousands of innocent people.

But making those who neglect, spoil, defend or hire lawyers for their killer children or those who harbour, aid, abet or support their killer relatives, guilty of the same crime.

Those human rights activists will of course object strongly, but who defends the human rights of those who are killed?

 

[po2wq]

ya, man! ...

parens dunno how 2 bling up! ...

teachers never bother 2 teach! ...

gahmen heck care 2 govern! ...

 

[hairylee]

ya, man! ...

parens dunno how 2 bling up! ...

teachers never bother 2 teach! ...

gahmen heck care 2 govern! ...

Welcome to LKY School of Public Policy.

 

[zhihau]

ya, man! ...

parens dunno how 2 bling up! ...

teachers never bother 2 teach! ...

gahmen heck care 2 govern! ...

teachers teach? i think teachers these days ain't teachers any more, more like admin staff :p:p:p

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Your methods are questionable. If we start going down the slippery slope that you laid out in your post, when will it end?

If we follow your suggestion, we will all eventually become witch hunters, going after everyone associated with a criminal activity.

It will start out with perfectly good intentions at first, but given human nature, I can see it snowballing into a crusade where people regardless of culpability are made to stand trial, simply because someone alleged their association.

I thought the spanish inquisition was over centuries ago.

Now, you are asking us to return to the paranoia of the middle ages?

Like I said, you start this witch hunt, when does it end?

Teenaged gang members slashing and killing other teenaged gang members or others in full view of the public.

Relatives harbouring and abetting the escape of a terrorist who planned to kill many innocent people.

Perhaps it's time to introduce provisions in the law to make people guilty by association.
Not just morally guilty of bringing up children who kill people or guilty of merely harbouring a terrorist who planned to kill thousands of innocent people.

But making those who neglect, spoil, defend or hire lawyers for their killer children or those who harbour, aid, abet or support their killer relatives, guilty of the same crime.

Those human rights activists will of course object strongly, but who defends the human rights of those who are killed?

 

[jw5]

Your methods are questionable. If we start going down the slippery slope that you laid out in your post, when will it end?

If we follow your suggestion, we will all eventually become witch hunters, going after everyone associated with a criminal activity.

It will start out with perfectly good intentions at first, but given human nature, I can see it snowballing into a crusade where people regardless of culpability are made to stand trial, simply because someone alleged their association.

I thought the spanish inquisition was over centuries ago.

Now, you are asking us to return to the paranoia of the middle ages?

Like I said, you start this witch hunt, when does it end?

Only for crimes involving people killing people and for people with "special associations".

In the case of teenagers killing others and being spared severe punishment due to being underaged, their parents are guilty by association.
In the case of terrorists killing many innocent people, those who aid and abet them are guilty by association.
It certainly should not include everyone associated with the killer or the parents of a 50 year old killer.

There will be 2 probable positive outcomes.

1. The killers will be deterred from killing if they care for these people. They may have no regard for their own lives but they will consider if it involves people close to them.

2. Parents who neglect will pay a severe penalty. Parents who spoil or defend their teenager killer children or relatives and friends who aid and abet terrorists will think twice before doing so.

 

[Dole43]

There is already a precedent in the amended 2006 NS Act, where the father of the son who doesn't want to return to do NS is liable for his son's actions.

 

[KuanTi01]

Hello, friends! There is also a section 34 in the Penal Code which spells out "common intention". Not strictly speaking, "guilt by association" as what jw5 has in mind.

34. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 34]

 

[jw5]

Hello, friends! There is also a section 34 in the Penal Code which spells out "common intention". Not strictly speaking, "guilt by association" as what jw5 has in mind.

34. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 34]

If the criminal act is the act of killing someone, the people with the killer should be charged with murder as well. The burden of proof should be on them to prove that they had no intention of participating in the killing and did what they could to stop it, not on the prosecution.

Should not include the act of not doing NS, which is very very minor compared to killing someone.

Btw, if the term "guilt by association" invokes any thoughts of McCarthy communist witch-hunts, that's not the intention. The idea is to make specific people accountable for crimes which involve killing someone under special circumstances.
Not rounding up people with similar idealogy or who are literally associated with the perpetuator.

 

[KuanTi01]

"Guilt by Association" if kept within tight confines may actually be useful. It's a question of definition and specificity. No witch-hunt is intended. If not, the potential for abuse is a serious drawback.

 

[myfoot123]

Teenaged gang members slashing and killing other teenaged gang members or others in full view of the public.

Relatives harbouring and abetting the escape of a terrorist who planned to kill many innocent people.

Perhaps it's time to introduce provisions in the law to make people guilty by association.
Not just morally guilty of bringing up children who kill people or guilty of merely harbouring a terrorist who planned to kill thousands of innocent people.

But making those who neglect, spoil, defend or hire lawyers for their killer children or those who harbour, aid, abet or support their killer relatives, guilty of the same crime.

Those human rights activists will of course object strongly, but who defends the human rights of those who are killed?

All living things are borned with killer instinct. Those that kill without blood is the worse. The main concern is not about the act of killing but what triggers the act. Your neighbour can be very friendly, courteous, and always care for the needy and helping the poor in his neighbour. One day a police came knocking at his door and charged him for murder. And under your suggested provision, his whole families will be implicated too. The first impression that comes into your mind is - not to curse him but ask a question why he did that (amidst all the good things he has done for the society). If we have too many provisions (on top of fines, charges, permits...etc), the chance of it being misused on the innocence will be very high.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Your qualifications are fair enough though I am very sure if put into practice, there will be some unintended consequences neither you nor I can foresee.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree with the stiff penalties meted out to mas selamat female family members for protecting him?

Only for crimes involving people killing people and for people with "special associations".

In the case of teenagers killing others and being spared severe punishment due to being underaged, their parents are guilty by association.
In the case of terrorists killing many innocent people, those who aid and abet them are guilty by association.
It certainly should not include everyone associated with the killer or the parents of a 50 year old killer.

There will be 2 probable positive outcomes.

1. The killers will be deterred from killing if they care for these people. They may have no regard for their own lives but they will consider if it involves people close to them.

2. Parents who neglect will pay a severe penalty. Parents who spoil or defend their teenager killer children or relatives and friends who aid and abet terrorists will think twice before doing so.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

If we have too many provisions (on top of fines, charges, permits...etc), the chance of it being misused on the innocence will be very high.

Yes that is right.

As I told JW5, it will start off with perfectly good intentions, but it will become very easy to abuse. Plus the issue of possible non-transparency, outright wrong-doing and misuse of power can become very difficult and thorny issues which are hard to track, rectify & prosecute.

It is very easy to spark off a medieval witch hunt with each person becoming paranoid and starting to accuse everyone else, and then having to live in fear of each other.

Very easy to become a slippery slope that will return society to the middle ages of fear and terror.

 

[jw5]

Your qualifications are fair enough though I am very sure if put into practice, there will be some unintended consequences neither you nor I can foresee.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree with the stiff penalties meted out to mas selamat female family members for protecting him?

That's one of the reasons why I started this thread. In my opinion, the penalties meted out were not stiff enough. If he had escaped while in custody for cheating someone's money or snatch theft, a harbouring charge and related sentence would be ok. Not for terrorism.

Another reason was that the penalties meted out for teenagers killing someone have not been stiff enough through the years. If the argument is that the children are underaged, then let the parents take it. One benefit I see from this is that parents will start monitoring their children more closely, at least trying their best to make sure they don't kill anyone.

The intention is not to make all family members and friends responsible for a killer's crime. But parents of teenaged killers and harbourers of known terrorists should be held accountable.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Very well then, how do you prevent or minimize abuse?

CLTP can be abused too, like ISA, but in practice the chance for abuse is lower because of the specific way the law is framed to target precisely manifestly destructive criminal activity that is a grave threat to society.

So how do you propose a system that lowers the probability of abuse and makes detection easier should abuse occur?

It is, as you can see, not as easy as you put it.

That's one of the reasons why I started this thread. In my opinion, the penalties meted out were not stiff enough. If he had escaped while in custody for cheating someone's money or snatch theft, a harbouring charge and related sentence would be ok. Not for terrorism.

 

[jw5]

Very well then, how do you prevent or minimize abuse?

CLTP can be abused too, like ISA, but in practice the chance for abuse is lower because of the specific way the law is framed to target precisely manifestly destructive criminal activity that is a grave threat to society.

So how do you propose a system that lowers the probability of abuse and makes detection easier should abuse occur?

It is, as you can see, not as easy as you put it.

To prevent or minimize abuse, have specific provisions for specific people relating to specific crimes.
The two I have cited are:
1. Parents of teenaged or underaged killers.
2. Harbourers of known terrorists who aid and abet them.

The prosecution/state/police will have to prove that they are the parents or that they indeed harboured the terrorist. This is not difficult and no different from the present situation. The difference is that these people would be guilty of the same crime as the killer, not simply a "moral failure" or a harbouring charge.

It won't be a situation whereby all family members, relatives or friends of the killers are hauled up, accused and charged.
"Guilt by association" is simply a phrase used as the thread title. It may invoke images or memories of McCarthy communist witchhunts, but that's not the intention at all.