I was going to write about something cheerful, I swear

Anyone who has ever said that the law is about justice was a goddamned fool.
The law is not about equity, or fairness. The law is not about upholding what should be. The law, instead, appears to have evolved into a triumph of stare decisis over equity, where the rule of procedure and form predominate, but the concept of "justice for all" becomes an Elysian ideal which experience lawyers laugh cynically about with bitterness tainting their voices as they sit at their desks at 3 in the morning while making a short acquaintance with Jim, Jack and Johnnie because their wives have left them, their kids don't know them and this affidavit just has to be filed by 9 am, damnit.
Prove to me otherwise when the law runs roughshod over someone's rights simply because the judiciary's hands have been tied by some clumsy legislator's attempt at what I can only assume he believed to be a shining sword that would guard the government's tax dollars. Never mind that for the past ten years the judiciary has squirmed and fretted under the restraints that sat uneasily on shoulders bearing the burden of safeguarding the rights of the innocents - the legislature, smug in its belief that its work is done! moves on to more pressing issues, like putting priests in jail because they habour illegal immigrants (all hail the simplicity of strict liability offences, see how it streamlines the system)
"It is hard, but there is no choice." The law is clear.
Ten years ago, the Chief Justice himself said that there were no benefits to the system. And as for those unfortunates who get snared in the unforgiving confines of the legislation? "No regard can be had to their innocence."
And yet nothing changes.
You, whoever you are who drafted that piece of shit. I think you might have damned near broken a man's heart today. I hope you’re proud.
6 Comments:
- Anthony commented:
That depends a lot on how accountable a legislature is, isn't it? :D
- » September 09, 2005 5:22 AM
- commented:
Personally, I've always struggled somewhat with legislation involving strict liability or rebuttable presumptions. Given the often damning consequences of a criminal conviction, I find it hard to accept that certain "crimes" can be committed without the necessary mens rea.
- » September 09, 2005 7:53 AM
- commented:
Well, the only people who receive justice (and plenty of it! more than their fair share, sometimes) in Singapore are the wealthy and / or the influential.
And that's just one of the drawbacks of a generally unaccountable State.- » September 09, 2005 12:33 PM
- Slinky commented:
Sorry, Anthony, did you just say that our legislature was accountable?
: )
What exactly would we do, I wonder. Vote them out? *snicker*
Hit the nail right on the head though.
geekgeek : I think a rebuttable presumption may be more justifiable than a strict liability offence, simply because the courts still retain some measure of discretion. Strict liability offences, on the other hand, ties the hands of the courts regardless of the circumstances which would mitigate against the often harsh penalties which are meted out for said offences. And sometimes it borders on absurdity. Are the offences so heinous that it justifies the imprisonment of someone who never intended to rbeak the law, or has taken all reasonable precautions possible?
But here's thing : I'm not even talking about a law which has penalized those who have committed the offence - I'm talking about a law which penalizes someone who wasn't even involved in the commission of the offence. Which is just a whole new level of stupid.
Jiang Wei: I suppose on the whole it could be worse *coughIndonesiacough*- » September 09, 2005 5:10 PM
- commented:
One result of the State's cynical, paternalistic, condescending and denigrating attitude towards its own citizenry is its assumption that it is entitled to pre-judge innocence or guilt without due process. As in, "aaaah, of course he did it lah!! Especially if he's not from the upper class!"
The individual citizen becomes merely a plaything in the hands of a megalomaniacal State eunuch-bureaucrat.
It's a Singaporean thing. People there love pre-judging everything, assuming the worst about others and assuming that they have the right to do so. This perverse predilection extends to public officials, too.- » September 10, 2005 10:52 AM
- commented:
Oops, forgot to fill in the name field. Last comment brought to you by moi :P
- » September 10, 2005 10:53 AM