Ahok goes straight to jail: Questions raised over Jakarta court's harsh stance
Click HERE
This example shows how political or religious agenda might have resulted in an overly harsh sentence being delivered.
The law is supposed to deliver justice and protect the welfare of the people, but this is only as good as the people using the law. If the people/govt choose to use the law to serve their own ends, then justice becomes compromised, the proportionality argument of punishment is not observed, as the punishment meted out either becomes too lenient (to let the influential corrupt get away) or too harsh (as a weapon to suppress those deemed a threat).
Consider the often-cited accusation of how the Singapore govt allegedly used the law to suppress or crush the opposition in the past, esp in the infamous example of Operation Coldstore, where the PAP was accused of labelling the oppostion party members "communists" (seen as a threat to national security in those volatile times), and then using the ISA (Internal Security Act) to detain them.
Excerpt from article in link:
the verdict was more a result of "politicking by the elites from various political parties who hate Ahok and who have been deprived of government projects because of Ahok's strict style of governing".
"The verdict has proved the blasphemy (law) is prone to misuse by certain parties... It was a trial by the mob, which is actually against the rule of law."
Qns:
1. To what extent is it possible ‘to make the punishment fit the crime’? (Cam. 2013)
2. To what extent should compassion be shown to criminals?
This example shows how political or religious agenda might have resulted in an overly harsh sentence being delivered.
The law is supposed to deliver justice and protect the welfare of the people, but this is only as good as the people using the law. If the people/govt choose to use the law to serve their own ends, then justice becomes compromised, the proportionality argument of punishment is not observed, as the punishment meted out either becomes too lenient (to let the influential corrupt get away) or too harsh (as a weapon to suppress those deemed a threat).
Consider the often-cited accusation of how the Singapore govt allegedly used the law to suppress or crush the opposition in the past, esp in the infamous example of Operation Coldstore, where the PAP was accused of labelling the oppostion party members "communists" (seen as a threat to national security in those volatile times), and then using the ISA (Internal Security Act) to detain them.
Excerpt from article in link:
the verdict was more a result of "politicking by the elites from various political parties who hate Ahok and who have been deprived of government projects because of Ahok's strict style of governing".
"The verdict has proved the blasphemy (law) is prone to misuse by certain parties... It was a trial by the mob, which is actually against the rule of law."
Qns:
1. To what extent is it possible ‘to make the punishment fit the crime’? (Cam. 2013)
2. To what extent should compassion be shown to criminals?
posted by Dark Shadow | 1:32 AM
<< Home