On Crime, Punishment, and Monica Baey

So it's been all over Instagram, all over Facebook, and all over the news. 

The issue of NUS Student Monica Baey coming out to public on her experience being filmed during her shower, and thereafter her negative experience dealing with NUS and the Singapore Police Force (SPF). The issue has effectively blown up on social media, in fact there was this period where in an hour I would actually see at least 10 of my female friends comment/post/IGStory on the matter. Various mainstream media outlets have also reported on this matter.

The last I heard, NUS is convening a committee to investigate this issue.

For the uninitiated social hermits, you can read up on the matter by searching up her name (Monica Baey) on Google and read whatever article comes out.

I will not be commenting my views on this matter, as I think public sentiments are still very raw over the issue and I do not wish to offend either party (those supporting Baey or otherwise) with my views. I will rest my case and instead write my views on something related (hence I may go back and forth to the Baey case). Though I must say that I am sympathetic to what she has been through and wish her all the best going forward.

The main issue on the Baey case lies with whether the perpetrator was adequately punished. He was given a 12 month conditional warning, which means if he does not commit another crime within 12 months, he will not have a criminal record. Baey argues that the punishment was too little for his crime.

So what determines the punishment of a crime?

One definite answer is to pay for the sin one has done. It makes sense too. A person did something wrong, s/he has to pay for it. This is why the worse the crime the harsher the punishment. Litterbugs get a fine, while murderers get the death penalty. 

But paying for one's crime does not mean revenge. It doesn't mean that the criminal must be punished do a point that the victim feels satisfied, otherwise there is no end to punishment. One may view a sentence adequate, while another may feel more punishment is needed. This is why the victim never decides the punishment, but rather a neutral judge or investigation officer. Furthermore, it's also justifiable to say that no matter what the criminal is punished, the damage is done, and the punishment cannot undo whatever tragedy occurred to the victim, only at most to placate the victim and their family slightly. There also comes a point where the victim needs to forgive themselves and let go, even after they've forgiven the criminal.

Another way to determine the punishment is how to rehabilitate the criminal. It's common sense that most criminals make it out of jail alive and need to rejoin society. So punishment isn't just about making a person pay for their crime, but also to ensure they learn from their mistake, never offend again, and commit to becoming a better person. This is why there is the one-third remission for good behaviour of prison inmates, as well as opportunities for prisoners to take lessons and learn skills while in jail. These methods are to make them better people and ensure they do not go into the life they were before prison. Rehabilitation is certainly another issue when considering the sentence.

One should also consider mitigating and aggravating factors before a punishment is meted out. Mitigation means reasons that puts the criminal in a less bad light, such as stealing for their starving children. Aggravating factors means reasons to punish the criminal more, such as driving away after running over someone. For Baey's case, the perpetrator was drunk at the point of offence, which I'm not sure whether is it a mitigating or aggravating factor, since you can look at it either ways...

Lastly, the past and the future should be considered. In legal terms I think this is called precedence. From my limited knowledge, unless there are extenuating circumstances, if a crime occurs in the same manner as a previous crime, the perpetrator must be punished the same way. Which means if person A stabs person B in similar circumstances that person C stabs person D 10 years ago, person A should be punished the same way as person C, unless of course, if there are mitigating or aggravating factors. For special and original cases, the judge also needs to take special care in deciding for the punishment, because future similar cases will look towards this case as a precedence.

Being a judge/IO must be very difficult to balance so many factors to determine a case result and punishment. This is why I have faith and respect to our Singapore judges, except some cases, but that's for another story.

Interestingly, one thing that I have learnt from this Baey case while reading up is how victims can use other avenues to seek redress. In the Baey case, Baey feels that her school and the police have failed her to seek proper punishment for the perpetrator. However, she can consider suing the perpetrator for the mental trauma he has put her through. While this will no longer be a criminal case but rather a civil case, perhaps this way she can get a fairer decision as compared to the present. Yet, if the civil case doesn't work in her favour, she can appeal, but ultimately she must respect the final decision by the court.

Also, it is a good time for me to remind my readers on how online naming and shaming (or 'doxxing') is a double edged sword. (One can read my old post at https://thecwtheorems.blogspot.com/2019/01/on-online-naming-and-shaming.html)  It can be useful if used right, but do not misuse it, and more importantly do not get hurt by it.

Finally, I would like to wish all my friends in university to please stay safe... and please don't be stupid.