By Xinghui Kok
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore on Monday passed a law to hold “dangerous offenders” indefinitely, even after they complete their jail sentences.
The legislation applies to those above 21 who are convicted of crimes such as culpable homicide, rape and sex with minors, who are deemed to be at risk of reoffending upon release.
In a speech in parliament, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said: “An offender who continues to pose a real danger to others should not be released.”
He gave an example of a man jailed for raping his 6-year-old stepdaughter, who, after his release started sexually assaulting his sister’s granddaughter who was 10 in 2015. In 2017, he sexually assaulted the girl’s younger sister who was 9.
“We have to deal with these kinds of menace and protect our society,” said Shanmugam.
The new law means that instead of being automatically released after completing their prison terms, such offenders would need the home affairs minister to decide that they were no longer a threat to the public.
The minister would be advised by a review board made up of experts such as retired judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and psychologists, and the offender and his lawyers can make representations to the board. Those found unfit for release will have their case reviewed annually.
Singapore estimates this law will affect fewer than 30 offenders a year.
I understand the sentiment but the way that they are going about this is just going to blow up in their face and make them look bad.
If they had just quietly changed the sentencing laws to say “A sentence of 25 years imprisonment issued against a defendant convicted of culpable homicide is interpreted to mean a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 25 years”, nobody would have batted an eye.
Yea I didn’t quite understand the change. Is this the lazy way of changing it so that each individual sentencing doesn’t have to change (ex. 25 years changed to life sentence with parole hearings after 25 years)? I guess the problem then would be that the decision making becomes more arbitrary and prone to bias.
Same with the example given. How does it work right now in Singapore for repeat offenders?
As far as I remember Norway is planning to keep Breivik also behind bars indefinitely. But probably in a mental institution if I’m not mistaken.
How about…
(Hear me out)
How about… rehabilitation instead of simply incarceration?
A) That would take tax revenue for people that most voters sadly have almost no empathy for, despite most prisoners being products and victims of their society that were disenfranchised and driven into illegal activity out of desperation.
B) Voters largely, maliciously love the suffering of prison populations, because it provides the sweet, sweet dopamine drip of schadenfreude. Most people see schadenfreude about prisoners as entirely guilt free, even if they avoid feeling pleasure at the suffering of the poor and homeless.
People by and large fucking suck. They see prisoners as the “other,” despite them being desperate, struggling human beings and countrymen that usually needed help but received the opposite before having little to nothing left to lose.
Few other issues put the unvarnished cruelty of mankind on display like discussing how we should treat our prisoners. For every benevolent, enlightened person calling for mercy, compassion, and rehabilitation, there’s 10 bloodthirsty people screaming to turn the fucking screws on those BAAAAAAD people.
I thought every country had this, but now I’m wondering if that’s not correct.
From the Canadian criminal code:
Sentence for dangerous offender
(4) If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall
(a) impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period;
But looking it up it is quite contentious. I always assumed it was more of a mental health diagnosis than a sentence. I’d be curious how many other countries have similar provisions .
Imagine looking at England and thinking “this legal system makes sense, we should copy it”.
Looks like a big W so far, but I’d be open to hear how this could blow up in our faces.
It makes prison sentences more arbitrary rather than there being a standard fixed in law that is applied universally, somewhat objectively, and not subject to a single person’s unchecked discretion.
As with anything that allows for state power to be exercised more arbitrarily, this legislation is autocratising. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—it just means you have to put more trust in the Government to not abuse the power they’ve gained.
And if there’s One Thing we all know about government, it’s that it does not abuse power
In principle this law seems fine. If anything, it should be accompanied by reducing sentence lengths. I haven’t read the law directly to know if there are some glaring loopholes or w/e, but at the end of the day prison should be about rehabilitation, and when thats impossible, humane indefinite incarceration.
