For our last TWIC post this year, we took out some of our case notes from court hearings we observed over the last few months that we hadn’t included in previous reports.
These cases reinforce some of the patterns that have been consistent across our experiences reporting on court proceedings over the course of this year.
They bolster our opinion that the legal system in Singapore is strongly oriented towards punishment, regardless of mitigating factors or the very difficult life circumstances that many people who come into conflict with the law are often in. Tragically, there seems to be a persistent tendency to prefer punishment over giving people second chances, including the support and opportunities they need to make amends. Some judges apply this preference even to cases involving young people.
Case 1
A man was struggling to apply for bail as he did not have the financial resources, nor the kind of social capital required to meet his bail requirements.
As his family is currently residing in a rental flat, his mother did not qualify to be his bailor, as she could not provide proof of property, which was required by the court.
None of his other family members met the requirement to be his bailor either.
Since he has been remanded in prison, his family has lost access to their utilities as they have been unable to afford their bills. He was the sole breadwinner, prior to his arrest.
Case 2
A man who was being tried for an offence that took place when he was 17 years old sought leniency from the judge. He made a plea for probation, given his young age at the time .
He hoped that probation would give him the chance to build a stable life. The judge rejected his plea, arguing that probation would only have been considered if he had committed the offence at an even younger age.
He sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment.
Case 3
A man appeared in court asking for a reduction in his sentence from 3 weeks to 2 as he needed to work to feed his family.
Out of desperation, the man had sought advice on how to make quick money, and agreed to help transport imitation tobacco products. He hadn’t considered the consequences, and wasn’t educated on the legal penalties.
The man told the court that his brother has had to support his family in his absence, but as his brother has his own family to provide for, it is hard on him, and the man feels a tremendous amount of guilt for putting his brother in this position.
The Deputy Public Prosecutor responded that financial hardships should not be a factor in a mitigation plea.
Transformative Justice Collective 