PDA

View Full Version : 5 Years ONLY for Taking A Life...



Jose Mourinho
16-02-2006, 11:05 AM
In The Star today dated 16.2.2006:

Jailed five years for killing student

BY CECIL FUNG AND LEE MEI NYEE

KUALA LUMPUR: It is five years' jail each for the five Thais who admitted to causing the death of law student Darren Kang Tien Hua.

High Court Justice Mohtarudin Baki ordered the sentence to run from the date of their arrest in July 2004.

Sulkifli Muso, 21, Wae Yusoh Wae Salae, 25, Abdun-loh Maming, 21, Abdul Torleh Yama, 26 and Masukri Che Mae, 26, appeared relieved after the sentencing.

On Tuesday, they pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter by causing the death of the Sheffield University student in Desa Sri Hartamas between 3am and 4am on July 6, 2004.

Justice Mohtarudin stressed that as foreigners they should have shown respect for the laws of the country since they came here to make a better living.

“As restaurant workers, you should have adhered to the principle that 'the customer is always right',” he said adding that the court had taken Kang's behaviour into consideration in determining the sentence.

In mitigation, counsel Hazman Ahmad told the court that Kang was intoxicated that night.

He had hurled derogatory remarks on the accused and several other patrons of Warung Uncle Don with whom he had a fight, Hazman said.

Based on the chemistry report, he said, Kang had three times the amount of alcohol allowed in his blood under the Road Transport Act 1987 and had acted violently.

“The victim made the situation worse when he returned with his three friends and began scolding the accused and several patrons, using abusive words,” he said adding that the accused would like to apologise to Kang's family.

Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor B. Sarala Pillai contended that the accused admitted to the facts of the case, which made no mention of physical violence on Kang's part.

“In the final stages of the incident, the victim tried to run away but all the accused went after him,” she said adding that whether Kang was drunk could not be determined.

“They could have called the police instead but they did not.”

......................

To me, all I know is that, even with the so-called 'mitigating circumstances' or not, a life is lost. Irregardless of what the court decides, the five are still KILLERS and by July 2009, these five young men would still be in their late twenties and having a great time while the family of the victim will continue mourning and the victim's ashes in an urn in a memorial park.

Next time, if I stagger up to you during the next TT and 'appear' to be intoxicated and I called you good people a few derogatory remarks, you all can take that opportunity to beat the crap out of me and kill me. You will be out in five years' time.

:)

kress
16-02-2006, 11:09 AM
five years only because they weren't connected...
imagine if i were a millionaire.... maybe no need to go to jail oso... just say that it was self defence and that i was provoked...

mon
16-02-2006, 11:14 AM
Jailed five years for killing student
Justice Mohtarudin stressed that as foreigners they should have shown respect for the laws of the country since they came here to make a better living.


Did this 'Justice Mohtarudin' think with his brain when he pronounced the sentence?? :(

JackRyan1975
16-02-2006, 11:19 AM
Even the lesser charge of manslaughter carries a maximum jail term of 20 years. The 'learned judge' thinks they only deserve a quarter of that. I hope race and religion has nothing to do with the sentence.

Chermaine
16-02-2006, 11:27 AM
Unfair!

Now i know when i am not happy with someone, I can just "kao tiam" them.

After 5 yrs everything would "kao tiam" lioa

bugbear
16-02-2006, 11:44 AM
Did this 'Justice Mohtarudin' think with his brain when he pronounced the sentence?? :(

Sorry to inform you that the law is the law. They were not charged for murder but for manslaughter is you read carefully. Don't know why this is so but I guess the prosecutors could not get sufficient evidence to convict for murder as they cannot identify who among them actually kill Darren.

So to be safe, don't be like Jose who go around pissing off these people. :D Let's be meek when confronted by these type of people and you may yet live to fight another day. (pun unintended) :D

jasonbhlee
16-02-2006, 12:29 PM
with 1/3 remission for good behviour, they will be out in 3.5 years. Then make sure you don't go near the restaurant again. You may be hacked to death, then again they only serve 5 years........

Choon1980
16-02-2006, 12:32 PM
Yeah, I kinda miss the days when everyone would just get together in the town square for a lynching...

saml
16-02-2006, 12:41 PM
We were all not at the scene of the incident. How can we comment on what is the right sentence. The learned judge has evaluated all arguments, that is what the court is for. As the defense counsel has said, that these people were probably provoked, what could be the intention of this guy who brings back 3 of his friends to intimidate the workers at the restaurant. I am convinced that if the workers in the restaurant was the son/s of some vvips, in all likelihood they would get a defense lawyer who will argue that they had been deeply provoked. Just because they are restaurant workers does not meant that justice should be denied to them. They had no right to take anyone's life and for that they have to go to jail, one has to accept that there are mitigating factors.

Atomic Fire
16-02-2006, 12:50 PM
There appears to be no justice in this country now! Imagine a judge can be so lenient. It is sending out a wrong message that a person can walk away with just 5 years for ending another's life. Is life really that cheap in this bolehland of ours?

I happened to know this lady Sonia Teh too. And my heart really goes out to her. Pray that she can find in her heart to also forgive this judge apart from the 5 idiots who caused her so much of misery. Sonia had a really really tough life bringing up Darren all by herself and now someone can just take it away with just 5 years in jail! Maybe her suffering will bring to the fore what kind of justice is being administered here.

suleenelena
16-02-2006, 01:01 PM
There appears to be no justice in this country now! Imagine a judge can be so lenient. It is sending out a wrong message that a person can walk away with just 5 years for ending another's life. Is life really that cheap in this bolehland of ours?

I happened to know this lady Sonia Teh too. And my heart really goes out to her. Pray that she can find in her heart to also forgive this judge apart from the 5 idiots who caused her so much of misery. Sonia had a really really tough life bringing up Darren all by herself and now someone can just take it away with just 5 years in jail! Maybe her suffering will bring to the fore what kind of justice is being administered here.
I know her too. And I pray for her too .

mon
16-02-2006, 01:38 PM
This is beginning to sound like a minor offence. It's frightening. To cause death to a person just by whacking needed so much more strength and physical violence than just whacking a person to unconsciousness. Whatever they did, may they live to remember what they have done to a human life.

Justice: fairness, justness, impartialness, integrity, morality, virtue, principle, honour. :(

JackRyan1975
16-02-2006, 01:45 PM
Anyone remember the 4 Kuwaitis who beat up a local Chinese guy thinking that he sodomised a boy? Those 4 were only slapped with a fine....so what's new? I'm beginning to wonder if the judiciary is influenced by political considerations. :mad:

saml
16-02-2006, 01:51 PM
Hypothetically, if the guy came back with his friends and killed one of the thais, what do you all think would be an appropriate sentence? Lets say none of us know the accused or the victim.

orchipalar
16-02-2006, 01:56 PM
In mitigation, counsel Hazman Ahmad told the court that Kang was intoxicated that night.

He had hurled derogatory remarks on the accused and several other patrons of Warung Uncle Don with whom he had a fight, Hazman said.

Based on the chemistry report, he said, Kang had three times the amount of alcohol allowed in his blood under the Road Transport Act 1987 and had acted violently.

“The victim made the situation worse when he returned with his three friends and began scolding the accused and several patrons, using abusive words,” he said adding that the accused would like to apologise to Kang's family.

Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor B. Sarala Pillai contended that the accused admitted to the facts of the case, which made no mention of physical violence on Kang's part.

“In the final stages of the incident, the victim tried to run away but all the accused went after him,” she said adding that whether Kang was drunk could not be determined.

“They could have called the police instead but they did not.”

Err...dear Saml:)...has a valid point...we were NOT in the courtroom witnessing n listening to the trials...neither were we present at the night of the fatal incident...

The court passed judgement based on facts n evidences...presented by both the prosecuting officer n the defence lawyer...

Ahem...Orchi would say that...the defence lawyer won BIG in the case...n that perhaps...the prosecuting officer were NOT as 'prepared' n 'confident' with this case...err...don't forget the public prosecutor had charged the accused for manslaughter in the first place...NOT murder...

The juries in this case found the accused guilty of manslaughter based on evidences submitted n witnesses presented before the court...how else could they have done any differently...

n the judge passed a sentence which is consistent to degree of seriousness of such the offence...which is manslaughter...by ACCIDENT....n it is NOT a case of a pre-meditated MURDER...

Ahem...how else would the judge do any differently under those circumstances...?

Err...coming back to Kang...he paid the fatal price for being too drunk n violent(according to many witnesses)...ahem...sorry but he was at the wrong place n at the wrong time...he got freaking drunk...n also picked a fight with the wrong crowd...technically he died of an accidental death...nothing more...n nothing less...

chin_wan
16-02-2006, 02:00 PM
Very well said, orchi.

JackRyan1975
16-02-2006, 02:06 PM
Orchi, you articulated the circumstances of the proceedings and confines of the law well.

But again, the message sent out by this decision is that it is not considered a serious enough crime if a group is provoked, and in turn outnumbers, attacks and mercilessly kill the provoker.

trifecta
16-02-2006, 02:32 PM
Even the lesser charge of manslaughter carries a maximum jail term of 20 years. The 'learned judge' thinks they only deserve a quarter of that. I hope race and religion has nothing to do with the sentence.

I dont usually surf from work and very rarely post from the office but today i'm breaking both becos the only mofo i see equating race and religion into everything is YOU.

expat1609
16-02-2006, 02:45 PM
I dont usually surf from work and very rarely post from the office but today i'm breaking both becos the only mofo i see equating race and religion into everything is YOU.

could not agree more, it is just ridiculous sometimes !

Atomic Fire
16-02-2006, 02:49 PM
Err...Orchi, u mentioned "accidental death" as if he died by accident. But i think u can still remember vividly the way the newspapers reported how this group of guys cornered him, use a chair to trap him and repeatedly beat him with something hard on his abdomen? And even when he tried to get away, they still came after him and continuously whacked him without any mercy. The way they beaten him to death was 'gruesome' using the mildest word that i can find. And I'm sure no man (even if he is intoxicated will not know that this kind of beating will surely lead to one's death, no?) Well, the 5 guys were not even intoxicated at that point in time and so they surely will know that with this kind of a beating, surely no one no matter how strong he is will be able to survive.

But the question here is: Is it right to allow oneself to lose his own self-control when someone else provokes him to the extend that he goes on a killing drive? More so, is it deterrent enough to pass a sentence of just 5 years even if there are mitigating factors? Wouldn't this set in motion a dangerous precedence where one may think "what is 5 years if I can put an end to your life for provoking me"?

trifecta
16-02-2006, 02:50 PM
could not agree more, it is just ridiculous sometimes !

Thanks for speaking up, i just hope that our malay posters like tempudua and the edge (not sure just guessing here) will participate more in this forum and realise that most of us are level headed. OK that's it for me, i've exceeded my self imposed quota of participation.

expat1609
16-02-2006, 03:12 PM
Err...Orchi, u mentioned "accidental death" as if he died by accident. But i think u can still remember vividly the way the newspapers reported how this group of guys cornered him, use a chair to trap him and repeatedly beat him with something hard on his abdomen? And even when he tried to get away, they still came after him and continuously whacked him without any mercy. The way they beaten him to death was 'gruesome' using the mildest word that i can find. And I'm sure no man (even if he is intoxicated will not know that this kind of beating will surely lead to one's death, no?) Well, the 5 guys were not even intoxicated at that point in time and so they surely will know that with this kind of a beating, surely no one no matter how strong he is will be able to survive.
.........

this is exactly the question i am asking myself a lot.
this beating up somebody, very famous in here as i see, is not to teach a lesson, but allways an attempted murder. it does no more mean to wack somebody, as it was meant 10 years ago (at least in europe).

so if one goes to beat somebody to death, it was an accident/manslaughter.
if one goes to shoot somebody with a gun, or slaughter somebody with a barang, then it is murder.
what logic is that ? doesn't mean murder to kill somebody (accident excepted of coz) ?
is this manslaughter story right or not?
i mean if one is drunk like hell, one cannot be a murder anymore, even shooting somebody is no more murder then?

orchipalar
16-02-2006, 03:22 PM
Err...Orchi, u mentioned "accidental death" as if he died by accident. But i think u can still remember vividly the way the newspapers reported how this group of guys cornered him, use a chair to trap him and repeatedly beat him with something hard on his abdomen? And even when he tried to get away, they still came after him and continuously whacked him without any mercy. The way they beaten him to death was 'gruesome' using the mildest word that i can find. And I'm sure no man (even if he is intoxicated will not know that this kind of beating will surely lead to one's death, no?) Well, the 5 guys were not even intoxicated at that point in time and so they surely will know that with this kind of a beating, surely no one no matter how strong he is will be able to survive.Err...dear AtomicFire:)...Orchi would be the last person sitting on the bench as the judge...neither is Orchi capable enough to sit on the jury stand to witness the proceedings of the trials...

BUT this Orchi could tell you as much...the prosecutor forked up BIG time...when he failed to present a stronger prosecuting case to the court...against the accused which would also include reliable witnesses to attest to the claims n reports published the newspaper(which may NOT be admissable in this case)...n as a result of that...Orchi could repeat again also...that technically Kang died of an accidental death...even though from injuries inflicted by ALL the accused...n the accused were NOT entirely culpable for the crime...

Kang's innocence is doubtful...n unfortunately he ended up being the one paying the deadly price for his share of the blame...

Btw...anyone who has 3 times the permissable amount of alcohol in the body...would NOT feel much pains n suffering from the deadly blows of the attack...

Jose Mourinho
16-02-2006, 04:15 PM
My conclusion still is: -

To me, all I know is that, even with the so-called 'mitigating circumstances' or not, a life is lost. Irregardless of what the court decides, the five are still KILLERS and by July 2009, these five young men would still be in their late twenties and having a great time while the family of the victim will continue mourning and the victim's ashes in an urn in a memorial park.

Jose Mourinho
16-02-2006, 04:27 PM
A lot has been said about the Public Prosecutor and the Defence Lawyer. I do not know any public prosecutors in this country and so I cannot comment. But I do know a few very very very good criminal defence lawyers. What I can theorise is that a public prosecutor normally does not stay long in his job unless he has an eye for high office (I know, I seen too many American movies and I am thinking of positions such as Attorney General etc) and it can be quite a mismatch when a relatively unaccomplished public prosecutor faces a seasoned criminal defence lawyer who has been doing it for 25 to 30 years (again, perhaps, I have read too many John Grisham's books). I am not referring specifically to this case. All I am saying is that if I am very wealthy, I can engage some of the world's best criminal lawyers to fight for me where as the person I have murdered may have a junior public prosecutor fighting for his/her grieving family members and his/her soul.

JackRyan1975
16-02-2006, 04:27 PM
To me, all I know is that, even with the so-called 'mitigating circumstances' or not, a life is lost. Irregardless of what the court decides, the five are still KILLERS and by July 2009, these five young men would still be in their late twenties and having a great time while the family of the victim will continue mourning and the victim's ashes in an urn in a memorial park.

This leads me to reminisce the story of Spiderman: When Peter Parker gained his superpowers, he was apathetic to his surroundings and was bent on making quick bucks with his powers. He was in the best position to stop a robber that was running his way after a stick up. He did not, due to his own selfish reasons. An hour or so, he found his beloved Uncle Ben shot and left to die, by the very same robber which he failed to stop. His uncle never made it. From then on, he resoluted to put his powers to good use, after a personal tragedy that ought not to have happened.

It's fiction, but the moral of the story is there. I believe it has some relevance here. To those who do not think so, please do not throw tantrums at me like some spoilt brat.

saml
16-02-2006, 04:35 PM
IMHO I think the judge was taken all factors into consideration, including the mitigating factors and everything else into consideration when he gave out the punishment. In a case like this when there is no pressure from both the defendants and the victim's famililies, then the decision made is relatively untainted by any thing and it is a 'fair' judgement. If the victims/accused are related to vvips, famous personalities, then there is the element of pressure. In this case the judge would have considered all factors and it is also through no fault of the public prosecutor since the victim himself played a contributory role in the events leading to the incident.

pucman
16-02-2006, 04:35 PM
Even the lesser charge of manslaughter carries a maximum jail term of 20 years. The 'learned judge' thinks they only deserve a quarter of that. I hope race and religion has nothing to do with the sentence.

Isn't it obvious ;)

chin_wan
16-02-2006, 04:37 PM
Muslim...not necessary Malay.

pucman
16-02-2006, 04:40 PM
Muslim...not necessary Malay.

For your information, the southern Pattani thais are both malay and muslims. In fact, kelantan, terengganu, kedah was part of southern thailand before the british.

pucman
16-02-2006, 04:47 PM
http://www.mmail.com.my/Current_News/MM/Thursday/Frontpage/20060216110327/Article/index_html

Darren Kang’s mother was a bitter woman at the High Court yesterday and it was not because of the five-year jail sentence imposed on the five Thais who killed her son two years ago.

Sonia Teh, a businesswoman, was more upset over the way the five reacted when sentence was passed.

“I saw some of them smiling. They took away my only child and they still had the heart to smile,” she said.

Teh then broke down while speaking to the Press yesterday after proceedings.

“Have they no feelings of remorse? Even if he had used abusive words on them, it does not justify the senseless killing. What kind of society do we live in today?” she asked.

“People just can’t go around beating others over petty incidents.”

Teh’s hopes of seeing the prosecution appeal against the sentence was realised when it was later announced that an appeal would be filed soon.

Teh arrived at the court yesterday with Darren’s former fiancee, Goh Vin Cci, and a friend.

Goh left halfway during proceedings, before the sentence was passed. It was learnt she had flu.

Judge Mohtaruddin Baki sentenced the five Thais — Sulkifli Muso, 20, Wae Yusoh Wae Salae, 24, Abdunloh Maming, 21, Abdul Torleh Yama, 26, and Masukri Che Mae, 26 — to five years in jail for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Darren, 23, was reading law at Sheffield University in England before he was killed.

On Tuesday, the five, who were former employees of Uncle Don’s Restaurant in Desa Sri Hartamas, pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum jail of 10 years or fine, or both.

They admitted committing the offence between 3am and 4am, on July 6, 2004, in Jalan 26A/70A, Desa Sri Hartamas.

It was established in court that Darren’s alcohol level at the time of the incident was high.

Mohtaruddin said although the victim was hurling vulgar and offensive remarks, it did not justify the five men’s actions.

“I hope you will learn from this lesson,” he said, before ordering the jail sentences to run from the date of arrest on July 6, 2004.

In mitigation, counsel Hazman Ahmad and Mohd Fuzi Zain, who represented the five accused (left), said the accused, aged between 20 and 26, only received education until Form Two and Six.

“They come from poor families and the fact that they had pleaded guilty showed they have repented and regretted their actions. One of the accused, Masukri, is married with two children.

“All five had apologised to Darren’s family for the grief they have caused,” Hazman said.

Counsel also pointed out that at the time of the incident, Darren was drunk.

DPP B. Sarala Pillai, however, said although Darren was verbally abusive, he was not physically aggressive.

“The deceased was high, but there was no provocation. It was stated that Darren had fled the scene, only to be chased by the five men.

“On the alcohol level, different people have different tolerant levels. He may not be fit to drive, but that does not mean he was not fit to have supper with his friends,” she said.

Sarala pressed for a heavy penalty to send a message to society that such actions are not tolerable.

She added that the five Thais are also facing charges under the Immigration Act at the magistrate’s court.

robertec
16-02-2006, 05:37 PM
I dare say that most of you do not know the full facts of the case and yet you readily criticize a weighted judgement made by a High Court Judge.

Then it somehow turns into some kind of racial and religious slur, even though the people who were sentence were Thais.

Must be the rain.

=
=
=
=

Jose Mourinho
16-02-2006, 05:49 PM
I dare say that most of you do not know the full facts of the case and yet you readily criticize a weighted judgement made by a High Court Judge.

Then it somehow turns into some kind of racial and religious slur, even though the people who were sentence were Thais.

Must be the rain.

That is why this is called a Forum. :) But personally speaking, I do not have much faith in many high court judges and their learned deliveries.

pucman
16-02-2006, 10:35 PM
:confused:

joker2107
16-02-2006, 10:48 PM
bananaman where d hell r u? can a civilised forum tolerate condemnation of a judge by emotionally impaired ppl who do not hv access 2 full facts? kress, mon, our chelsea boss - u all deserve d red card plus a life ban on all things human. honestly, some comments leave little distance from bringing disrepute 2 d court. blatantly disgusting deplorable ...

a critical observation posted by others is that d defendants did not hv d very best of counsel. if u hv a right 2 shoot me dead blank point just bcos i raise a stick at u, than y cant i mesmerise u when u come pick a fight with me n then bring 3 of yr buddies 2 augment d altercation? much as i sympathise with darren's mum n much as i loathe violence n much less senseless killings, i cannot put my tots on par with sonia's reported sentiments :

quote : “Have they no feelings of remorse? Even if he had used abusive words on them, it does not justify the senseless killing. What kind of society do we live in today?” she asked. unquote.

in questioning the kind of society we live in 2day, she shud hv tot solely abt d actions of her son - getting drunk, picking a fight, bringing 3 friends ...

very strange that dissidents of d judgement r so damn defeaning on this established fact. :( :( :(

i quote further :
“In the final stages of the incident, the victim tried to run away but all the accused went after him,” she said adding that whether Kang was drunk could not be determined.

“They could have called the police instead but they did not.”

unquote

elevated levels of alcohol in d blood stream can cause ppl 2 misbehave. it was proven that darren had much more than d acceptable level of alcohol. yet d mum can whine that darren may not hv been drunk. i feel so sorry 4 sonia. not just cos of her loss of her son - she seems 2 b displaying a loss of sanity too. n i need 2 qualify my inference by asking her if she wud or cud hv called d cops when 4 abusively aggressive men r fronting her. if i were darren then n i saw any of d "killers" picking up d phone, i'd jump 2 d conclusion that he is doing what darren had just done - get back up. i wud never hv let that happen - even if it were 2 mean that d actors in this case had 2 change sides.

based solely on newspaper reports, it does appear that d hon judge had made a very fair assessment of d case. but based on a precedent, i'd say that in view of d mitigating circumstances, principally that of darren inviting 3 of his friends 2 reignite d fracas n not cos he was drunk, 5 yrs is mighty long. 2 wrongs dont make a right, yeah, shali, but one big wrong can mitigate another wrong.

btw, i also find it rather odd that d original charge had been 1 of murder cos it is very evident that not all d elements required 4 establishing murder were present. in action done in d heat of d moment, i dont c how premeditation can b proven. thus said, cud it be unfortunate that d defendants had d alternative charge of culpable homicide on their backs? or wud d good judge hv used his discretion 2 demand that d charge b amended 2 d lesser 1 had d alternative not been offered (was it such in d precedent case?) ?

Jose Mourinho
16-02-2006, 10:57 PM
You really need to get a grip of yourself. I mean, I am really concerned. All these laxative consumption to loosen the jaw muscles cannot be doing your health any good.

:)

pcyeoh
16-02-2006, 11:33 PM
I used to live next to a house where my neighbour had a quarrelsome son and both his parents pamperred him very much. "Our son can do no wrong" but the whole kampung knew that their son would terrorise the 'village.' Even my father used to comment "If the parents are not willing to 'kasi' (in hokkien means discipline) their darling son, then one day, a Joe Public would do so for them." And sure enough, he was killed in a similar situation like Darren. This is also a lesson to all of us. Don't think that your children are angels all the time. And don't let the public or strangers to prove you otherwise.

joker2107
16-02-2006, 11:45 PM
bravo, pc, another very well said piece from you.
but this is bolehland. will ppl ever learn. i mean, including ppl in this forum. ;)

trifecta
16-02-2006, 11:59 PM
bravo, pc, another very well said piece from you.
but this is bolehland. will ppl ever learn. i mean, including ppl in this forum. ;)

Nah it' always boil down to race and religion :rolleyes: , why was my newspaper delivered late, why race and religion, why does our football team suck, its due to race and religion, hey why my nasi tastes so bad i bet the malay/chinese/indian/ dude next to me is getting better stuff man this is all due to race and religion.


But to our society's credit, this thread was the first place where the race and religion was insinuated to be a determining factor for a 5 year sentence.

trifecta
17-02-2006, 12:07 AM
I used to live next to a house where my neighbour had a quarrelsome son and both his parents pamperred him very much. "Our son can do no wrong" but the whole kampung knew that their son would terrorise the 'village.' Even my father used to comment "If the parents are not willing to 'kasi' (in hokkien means discipline) their darling son, then one day, a Joe Public would do so for them." And sure enough, he was killed in a similar situation like Darren. This is also a lesson to all of us. Don't think that your children are angels all the time. And don't let the public or strangers to prove you otherwise.

You know as strange as this may sound, VSATs idea of slapping kids around is begining to look a little bit more sensible

kwchang
17-02-2006, 01:09 AM
The issue went out the window the moment someone hinted at racial undertow in the judgement. Those who had openly hinted at the racial deviations to the judgement are thus sent to our banana plantation. I have no way of determining if others have such thoughts ... As for Jose's comments on the judiciary, that is his personal remark. I cannot banana him for a general statement because my interpretation of out rules is that it only apply where one is not allowed ridicule another member of the forum, allowing for general statements. This was debated briefly in some thread a long time ago. For example, calling Malaysian drivers names do not mean you'll get reprimanded... say that a member is a nut will get you a banana.

I believe the debate on this case is the lightness of the sentence and the fact that the perpetrators were smiling and hugging make it look like that the decision was in the killers' favour (they did not deny the act, even if it was not premeditated).

Someone made a very good observation that perhaps the miscarraige of justice was due to the poor prosecution and strong defense. Yes, the honorable Judge had based his judgement on the evidences presented. It can be conjectured that he did not allow circumstantial evidences to sway his judgement. We have to give him that credit.

If the boy's mother thinks there is a miscarriage of justice, could she appeal the judgement? Let's hear it from our legal eagles.

trifecta
17-02-2006, 01:12 AM
( Admin note - quote of above post was not necessary - hence removed )

Errr boss, wasnt i speaking out against the racist undertones? why the banana for me? My last reply to joker was in jest. But if this banana was for my borderline flaming i'll accept it no problems.

kwchang
17-02-2006, 01:40 AM
OK-lah, my apologies. But you did say "this thread was the first place where the race and religion was insinuated to be a determining factor for a 5 year sentence" - actually no one said anything on racial lines until JackRyan1975 did it midway in the first page.

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 07:40 AM
Kwchang. Why is it that Joker who has slammed forum members got away with it? This was his statement: "bananaman where d hell r u? can a civilised forum tolerate condemnation of a judge by emotionally impaired ppl who do not hv access 2 full facts? kress, mon, our chelsea boss - u all deserve d red card plus a life ban on all things human. honestly, some comments leave little distance from bringing disrepute 2 d court. blatantly disgusting deplorable ..." This was not the first time. Just before CNY he went on another rampage and you just mentioned "are you drunk...." and let him off.

Now my point is that - could the lightness of the sentence (pun intended) of it all encourage him to be bold and whack any others whose views he doesn't like?

:)

JackRyan1975
17-02-2006, 09:24 AM
KWChang,

You have been waiting for the moment to banana me for a long long time, haven't you? Congratulations, you finally achieved your goal without much effort. :D

Not that the banana matters to me, but to be called making 'racist remarks' is grossly unfair. If my sole statement that "I hope this has got nothing to do with race and religion" can be played up by others to get me a banana, I can really seal my conclusion about your moderation skills.

Have a nice day.

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 09:45 AM
I used to live next to a house where my neighbour had a quarrelsome son and both his parents pamperred him very much. "Our son can do no wrong" but the whole kampung knew that their son would terrorise the 'village.' Even my father used to comment "If the parents are not willing to 'kasi' (in hokkien means discipline) their darling son, then one day, a Joe Public would do so for them." And sure enough, he was killed in a similar situation like Darren. This is also a lesson to all of us. Don't think that your children are angels all the time. And don't let the public or strangers to prove you otherwise.

PCYeoh. I quite agree with you. I have seen many of the cases you mentioned myself. However, this thread was started by me on the perceived 'leniency' of the sentences melt out to the five who killed Darren Kang. As I have said twice before, to me, it really doesn't matter what mitigation circumstances were offered. I look at the big picture and a life is lost and the five would walk out and became free men in their late twenties. That was my contention.

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 10:07 AM
A-G to appeal against sentence

By CHELSEA NG and LIM SHIE-LYNN

PETALING JAYA: The Attorney-General's Chambers will be appealing to enhance the sentence handed down on five Thais who admitted to manslaughter over the death of student Darren Kang two years ago.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said he signed the notice of appeal yesterday morning.

“So, you can be assured that an appeal is on the way. I hope people would not jump to conclusions but wait for the process of law to take its course,” he said.

The five Thais were jailed five years on Wednesday for causing the death of Kang at Sri Hartamas on July 6, 2004. They were originally charged with murder but the charge was reduced to manslaughter.

The five then pleaded guilty and Justice Mohtarudin Baki jailed them five years, saying that the court had taken Kang’s behaviour into consideration when determining the sentence.

However, many people interviewed considered the sentence inadequate.

Y.F. Kwan, a shipping manager, said a sentence should serve as a deterrent so that one would never take another life so easily.

Kwan added that the judgment should serve to sentence the accused and not be based on the victim’s state of mind or condition.

Concurring with these comments, The Star reader Ong Wooi Yee said, “a light punishment will only encourage people to commit more crime rather than teach them a lesson.”

Although the High Court report had stated that Kang was the instigator of the fight that led to his death, Ong believed that no one should be allowed to beat or kill another person out of anger.

Benjamin Lai, a 23-year-old university student, felt that whether a person was intoxicated or handicapped should not be the determinant factor in passing a sentence that involves manslaughter.

Programme officer Adrian Pereira, on the other hand, was more interested in the rehabilitation of the five Thais as “committing manslaughter is not something people usually do.”

.....................

All along, I have been trying to say what these two have said:

1. Although the High Court report had stated that Kang was the instigator of the fight that led to his death, Ong believed that no one should be allowed to beat or kill another person out of anger.
2. Benjamin Lai, a 23-year-old university student, felt that whether a person was intoxicated or handicapped should not be the determinant factor in passing a sentence that involves manslaughter.

Thus my tongue-in-cheek comment earlier that if I stagger up to you good people and appear to be intoxicated and call you all a few names, it still does not give you the right to kill me.

layman
17-02-2006, 10:30 AM
PCYeoh. I quite agree with you. I have seen many of the cases you mentioned myself. However, this thread was started by me on the perceived 'leniency' of the sentences melt out to the five who killed Darren Kang. As I have said twice before, to me, it really doesn't matter what mitigation circumstances were offered. I look at the big picture and a life is lost and the five would walk out and became free men in their late twenties. That was my contention.

what would be the appropiate sentence if 5 years is a wee short for the crime?

what this big fuss and outcry for a manifestly adequate deterrent sentence for the death of an instigator according to the presiding judge.presumably he has the facts and weighed the arguments from both the prosecutors and defense lawyers to arrive at a decision

retribution-do we have to slaughter the five just to exact revenge?where will this end?
try to imagine the agony the lives of these five would have to go through incarcerated in a malaysian jail and devoid of rights for 5 years.if the detention fiasco is an indication of the state of affairs in our system,the immense suffering in the jail is imminent for the five

why should mitigating circumstances not be allowed in this discussion?afterall would you agree to put some teenager or pregnant ladies behind bars for shoplifting or minor offenses?do we have to impose lenghty prison sentences for reckless drivers that mauls down passengers?

there must be reasons for the sentences and we leave that to the judiciary to deliberate and again a reminder we live in a civilised society.we do not have to remove anyone from this planet permanently whatever heinous crime he/she has commited.correctional services is meant to 'straighten' the perpetrator of the crime and hopefully he returns to this society fully rehabilitated

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 10:37 AM
I do believe we have to impose very lengthy prison sentences "for reckless drivers that mauls (mows) down passengers (you mean pedestrains)?" That is my view as you are entitled to yours.

:)

Choon1980
17-02-2006, 10:42 AM
Yes. I believe that mowing down a passenger constitutes as being more than just a minor offense. It's way above the league of shoplifting.

Firefly
17-02-2006, 11:09 AM
But Jose, if you have staggered into my deli and started throwing up table and creating heavoc, intoxicated or not, I would have you thrown out. But if you return with a few extra people, that's a different story.

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 11:12 AM
Then this is precisely what it is. You reap what you sow. You killed me and you will be killed legally but if you are lucky and with mitigating circumstances and a good criminal defence lawyer, you may get away with manslaughter and do minimal behind bars. A few years down the road you would be sipping coffee in your patio with your wife and children where as my wife and children would be without a father and possibly the sole breadwinner.

Personally, I am concerned about the numbers of murders and rapes (not too long ago there have been a number of road rages leading to taking away of lives but somehow the newspapers have lost interest in that). It has become so easy to commit a crime and it has become so easy to kill. Unless and until society has come up with a better way of deterrent (or rehabilitation as the more merciful would like to have it), the present system must ensure that the full book is thrown at those guilty of taking away lives of somebody's father/mother, husband/wife, children and siblings. Until then.

:)

aimless
17-02-2006, 11:39 AM
joining this thread a bit late....

personally i agree with what saml has been saying. Form what i read in the newspapers, it seems that you can't place the blame solely on these five workers - they did not set out to kill anyone. It would seem to me that Darren was the instigator in all this, and was disturbing customers at the warong... The five workers attempted to chase him out probably as part of their job - protecting their workplace and the other customers. He should have left it at that, but went off and came back with some friends. From what i read, he then attacked on of the Thais with a chair, and it all went downhill after that.

Now, put yourself in the Thais' position - this rowdy drunkard chap has COME BACK, with FRIENDS, and just ATTACKED your group. Now you and I can argue till the cows come home that it is the RIGHT thing to do to back off and call the cops or whatever, but how many people would do that? I think the Thais did what came naturally, and fought back. I'm pretty sure they didn't intend to kill the poor chap, but it went too far.

What would've happened if the thais had not beaten him up and just backed off? For all we know, a group of customers who witnessed things could've then attacked him.

A colleague of mine was in the vicinity that night and witnessed the incident. He told me about it at the time - can't remember the exact details, but I do remember that his account of the incident tallies with what I wrote above - the thais were provoked and retaliated, after they were whacked first.

bugbear
17-02-2006, 11:53 AM
Then this is precisely what it is. You reap what you sow. You killed me and you will be killed legally but if you are lucky and with mitigating circumstances and a good criminal defence lawyer, you may get away with manslaughter and do minimal behind bars. A few years down the road you would be sipping coffee in your patio with your wife and children where as my wife and children would be without a father and possibly the sole breadwinner.

Personally, I am concerned about the numbers of murders and rapes (not too long ago there have been a number of road rages leading to taking away of lives but somehow the newspapers have lost interest in that). It has become so easy to commit a crime and it has become so easy to kill. Unless and until society has come up with a better way of deterrent (or rehabilitation as the more merciful would like to have it), the present system must ensure that the full book is thrown at those guilty of taking away lives of somebody's father/mother, husband/wife, children and siblings. Until then.

:)

Jose my man, I do understand what you are getting on about. Sometime it seem like life is not fair when something just did not turn out right? I do admit that the sentence appear a trite lenient (that is why they smile and sight). But lets the people concern look into the appeal process as it is only right thing to do.
I believe people like orchi and kwchang are level headed people and people that I respected very much in this forum are doing much good in moderating an over heated thread here.
First off, I do not believe race and religion has got anything to do with the sentencing here. The learned judge certainly has his reason to mete out that sentence. Secondly, I do sympathise with Sonia Teh on her loss. As a single parent, it is not easy to raise up a son like Darren. I also agree with pcyeoh about spoilt brat that are not controlled. They may end up bringing more trouble upon themselve. A well bred son will avoid such confrontation at all cost because he understand what the effect of his action will be. He will also consider the sensitivity and pride of others.
Alas, such level headed individuals are all too often lacking in society in general. Wisdom is not all about IQ and book knowledge. It is also about being considerate and being civil in all things.
I say, let it be and let us trust it upon the intergrity of our judicial process to take it course. Peace. :)

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 11:55 AM
Now you and I can argue till the cows come home that it is the RIGHT thing to do to back off and call the cops or whatever, but how many people would do that?

I would apologize (even if I was right) and back off. :)

kwchang
17-02-2006, 12:07 PM
... to be called making 'racist remarks' is grossly unfair. If my sole statement that "I hope this has got nothing to do with race and religion" can be played up by others to get me a banana, I can really seal my conclusion about your moderation skills.

I'm not here to win prizes or praises. You are entitled to your opinion.
You did bring in the racial factor and it needs to be nipped in the bud.
If it was a bad call, you have my apologies.

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 12:10 PM
I believe people like orchi and kwchang are level headed people and people that I respected very much in this forum are doing much good in moderating an over heated thread here.

I don't think this thread is over-heated. Almost everybody here present their views calmly and they are entitled to their views. I am not seeking for people to agree with me. Well, with the exception of one (or two) who bashed people's heads in because they disagree with what others have posted. But then we do get all types of people in this world but for me, I would like to think that they have problems expressing themselves in a civil manner. In fact, those who have violently disagreed with me and others, did have some valid points but just because they could not talk and communicate civilly, those points were all lost. What a shame.

:)

JackRyan1975
17-02-2006, 12:18 PM
I'm not here to win prizes or praises. You are entitled to your opinion.
You did bring in the racial factor and it needs to be nipped in the bud.
If it was a bad call, you have my apologies.

Make sure you nip ALL racial factors in the bud, and not only zeroing in whatever JackRyan1975 posts in here. My nick is sexy enough, you don't always have to put it under your spotlight for it to ooze. :D

Your apology is accepted. Have a nice day.

tupai
17-02-2006, 01:07 PM
my personal philosophy:
I will never start a fight UNLESS i intend to finish it...

Its bravado that got this young man into a fight & then he succumbed to his injuries...not premeditated murder. he started it and he paid for it with his life...too bad for 5 and worst for 1...(his mum). He is dead, whats does he care?

yang amat banyak kali gaduh lato tupai

Choon1980
17-02-2006, 02:09 PM
but what if someone else starts the fight first?

layman
17-02-2006, 04:11 PM
Yes. I believe that mowing down a passenger constitutes as being more than just a minor offense. It's way above the league of shoplifting.


reckless driving is not uncommon in the roads of malaysia.accidents are design to happen in this land

if we were to imprisoned all these reckless drivers who unintentionally caused fatal accidents,then the penal colonies will be overwhelmed with careless drivers instead of hard core criminals!!

the punishment meted out should be proportional to the crime and not base on one's sentiment or perceived 'seriousness' of the act

of course shoplifting is a minor offense compared to fatal accidents .if mitigating factors are not allowed in our courts ,there will be an avalanche of teenagers and pregnant ladies languishing in our jails. again do we placed retribution for a momentary lapse/folly in this criminal act above and over the plight of these women who violated the law??

orchipalar
17-02-2006, 05:05 PM
Err...neither is Orchi seeking approval or praise...Orchi's condolence goes to Darren's mother warmly...err...it's a difficult times for her...since loosing his only son 2 years ago...

Ahem...having said that...many bastards got away with more or lessor crimes than this case...n they are NOwhere to be seen...err...justice is least served to the scores of victims of those crimes...

Err...in here...we see 5 younsters(one of them is a young parent) pleaded guilty...as a plea bargain...for a lighter jail term...

n now they are going to jail over their deadly mistakes which happened in the split moments on that fatal night...n 5 years or so from now...out from jail terms...they would wish that they could start afresh...n be given the chance to be better humans...

Anyone thinking there is no feelings of regret or remorse from those 5 youngsters?...putting Orchi in their shoes instead...Orchi doesn't think so...

Jose Mourinho
17-02-2006, 05:19 PM
Anyone thinking there is no feelings of regret or remorse from those 5 youngsters?...putting Orchi in their shoes instead...Orchi doesn't think so...

But Orchi is not in their shoes and cannot possibly even know whether they feel regret, remorseful, relief or glee. It is all speculation. Anyway, we have all moved away from the thread. Thank you all for your contributions.

:)

expat1609
17-02-2006, 09:52 PM
I'm not here to win prizes or praises. You are entitled to your opinion.
You did bring in the racial factor and it needs to be nipped in the bud.
If it was a bad call, you have my apologies.

kwchang,

just one suggestion of what i see in one chatroom. can you remove he word race from the threads, as you do it with the f-word and others?
in this chat the f-word for example is automatic displayed as LOVE
so the f. you looks much nicer and causes more smiles than anger :D

so why not replace the word race with person or human being.....

btw. an "applause" or "big hands" smiley would be nice too.... :rolleyes:

aimless
17-02-2006, 10:32 PM
can you remove he word race from the threads, as you do it with the f-word and others?

...so why not replace the word race with person or human being.....

cannot la... imagine someone posting:

"i am so fed up of those illegal motorbike human beings on the roads in front of my house every weekends!!"

expat1609
17-02-2006, 11:56 PM
cannot la... imagine someone posting:

"i am so fed up of those illegal motorbike human beings on the roads in front of my house every weekends!!"

ey aimless, y not, i am fed up every day of SOME motorbike human beings :D

anyway, juz find it more funny n relaxed, instead of those **** ;)

aimless
17-02-2006, 11:59 PM
ey aimless, y not, i am fed up every day of SOME motorbike human beings :D


yes yes i concur... of course must specify that i am fed up with SOME of them... lest some forummers come after me with a harley!! :D

expat1609
18-02-2006, 12:30 AM
yes yes i concur... of course must specify that i am fed up with SOME of them... lest some forummers come after me with a harley!! :D

nothing to worry, get some earplugs only, as the noise is the biggest threat of the harley...not so fast so easy escape ;)

JackRyan1975
18-02-2006, 09:52 AM
Since we're at the topic of taking lives, just wish to highlight the following excerpt on todays news of a web designer who killed his lover. Seems that he was provoked into this act and he wasn't in the right frame of mind. He surrendered to the police and confessed everything. However, he got the death sentence (mandatory for murder) and not 5 years:

He said Sara told him he did not really love her because he had hit her but he told her he loved her and would die for her. In an attempt to prove his love, Chian said he consumed 19 Uphamol pills but Sara only laughed at him. He took a knife from a cupboard in the house and slashed his own hand but again, Sara only laughed at him.

He said Sara then told him that she had come to Malaysia for the sole purpose of making money and was nice to him because of his money.

Chian said by this time, he had already spent RM20,000 and he felt angry. He lost control of himself and stabbed her multiple times.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Saturday/National/20060218082802/Article/index_html

saml
18-02-2006, 10:30 AM
On the issue of the accused smiling after the sentence, who wouldn't ? If the maximum sentence is 20 years and if you are sentenced to 5 anyone would. Court judgements are not predictible so I guess it is more out of relief than anything else.

Jose Mourinho
18-02-2006, 11:44 AM
One gets the death penalty and another can get 5 years. Both with 'mitigating circumstances'. All things considered, does it boil down to the presiding judge, the able (or otherwise) public prosecutor and the able (or otherwise) criminal defence lawyer? Food for thought. Welcome to the Real World.

That was what I have been trying to get across from the beginning.

Unbelievable
18-02-2006, 01:00 PM
Each circumstances must be carefully considered. If you inadvertently killed a gun-toting robber in self defense, do you deserve a death penalty? Food for thought.

Firefly
18-02-2006, 01:05 PM
Here most likely you wouldn't but elsewhere, you would be charged with homicide.

Teeque
18-02-2006, 06:44 PM
Remember the case abt the retired judge who shot dead an unarmed assailant and got acquitted? He claimed he shot the guy in self defense because the assailant was threatening him with violence. So who is more threatening here - the gun toting judge or the unarmed assailant?

joker2107
18-02-2006, 07:47 PM
Remember the case abt the retired judge who shot dead an unarmed assailant and got acquitted? He claimed he shot the guy in self defense because the assailant was threatening him with violence.
teeque, this is d case i referred 2 s d precedent case.
strange 2 that nobody has called 4 d blood of d developers / architect / engineers of devpt projects where negligence n non observation of safety rules led 2 death of workers. cant b bcos the victims were indons cos d very recent high profile case of a dr being made pancake in his beem when a 2tonner block took flight univited was a chinese.

cud d latter be a case of res ipsa loquitur? d law can presume negligence on grounds that d defendant had sole control of d cause of d mischief and d accident cud not normally hv occured without negligence, in which case burden is on defendant 2 prove that d accident was not caused by his negligence. Bryne v Boadle (1863) Skinne v l.b. & s.c. railway (1850)

orchipalar
18-02-2006, 11:24 PM
Seems that he was provoked into this act and he wasn't in the right frame of mind. He surrendered to the police and confessed everything. However, he got the death sentence (mandatory for murder) and not 5 years:

He said Sara told him he did not really love her because he had hit her but he told her he loved her and would die for her. In an attempt to prove his love, Chian said he consumed 19 Uphamol pills but Sara only laughed at him. He took a knife from a cupboard in the house and slashed his own hand but again, Sara only laughed at him.

He said Sara then told him that she had come to Malaysia for the sole purpose of making money and was nice to him because of his money.

Chian said by this time, he had already spent RM20,000 and he felt angry. He lost control of himself and stabbed her multiple times.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Saturday/National/20060218082802/Article/index_html

Err...Chian's testimony of being gravely provoked by Sara...is circumstantial...n the defence attorneys have no strong evidence to proof Chian's claims...n to what he said happened that night...

Ahem...the prosecutor has the stronger case against Chian...n had charged him for MURDER...which Chian is guilty of...

Err...n the court is convinced...based on irrefutable evidences presented by the public prosecutor...that's exactly what happened...Chian MURDERED Sara...

One would NOT get away with MURDER...

saml
19-02-2006, 03:56 PM
That was not a judge but a very senior lawyer. He has to be, cos he is 70 plus or 80 years old.

pcyeoh
20-02-2006, 08:49 AM
I knew all the time that could not be a judge as he would have much better judgement. He must be a lawyer and what can I say about lawyers??

JackRyan1975
20-02-2006, 09:28 AM
Err...Chian's testimony of being gravely provoked by Sara...is circumstantial...n the defence attorneys have no strong evidence to proof Chian's claims...n to what he said happened that night...

I thought the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor? No doubt he confessed to killing Sara, but could the defense lawyers have asked for an amended charge of manslaughter? There was no witness around, so the accused surely should be given the benefit of the doubt? Being so deeply in love with Sara, he ought not to have premeditated murder in his mind (even if there is, is this proven?), so I thought the charge of manslaughter may be more appropriate.

baby
20-02-2006, 09:44 AM
Being so deeply in love with Sara, he ought not to have premeditated murder in his mind (even if there is, is this proven?), so I thought the charge of manslaughter may be more appropriate.

It is unnerving what love can do. But I agree with what you've said JackRyan. They couldn't proof Sara was killed with malice and deliberately, in a circumstance not amounting to...murder.

JackRyan1975
20-02-2006, 09:55 AM
It is unnerving what love can do. But I agree with what you've said JackRyan. They couldn't proof Sara was killed with malice and deliberately, in a circumstance not amounting to...murder.

Love. If only more people know the true meaning of it. I am dumbfounded when people can emphatise with the 5 Thais guilty of bashing a young man to death, but feels that this web developer only deserves DEATH and nothing less.

Jose Mourinho
20-02-2006, 10:47 AM
One would NOT get away with MURDER...

On the contrary, one does get away with murder. If otherwise, how would this phrase had been coined centuries ago?

:)

orchipalar
20-02-2006, 01:37 PM
They couldn't proof Sara was killed with malice and deliberately, in a circumstance not amounting to...murder.Err...they don't have to...Chian confessed to the MURDER of Sara in the first place...along with the other irrefutable evidences produced by the prosecutor...n IF there is any possibility of a lesser charge...did he change his plea of NOT guilty to the MURDER charge(which carries the mandatory death penalty)...when it was read to him to begin with...???

Though he had submitted his testimony to the court...the juries weren't convinced n didn't believe it could be 2nd degree murder...or manslaughter.

Ahem...everybody seems to forget...Chian brutally stabbed Sara so many times...clearly with intent to kill her with the knife...n he did exactly that....

The other 5 Thais were fighting with Darren n beating him up...they could NOT have intended to kill Darren...to begin with.

aimless
20-02-2006, 01:59 PM
The other 5 Thais were fighting with Darren n beating him up...they could NOT have intended to kill Darren...to begin with.

i agree... that's why to a large extent i DO symphatize with them in this particular case.

JackRyan1975
20-02-2006, 02:57 PM
Err...they don't have to...Chian confessed to the MURDER of Sara in the first place...along with the other irrefutable evidences produced by the prosecutor...n IF there is any possibility of a lesser charge...did he change his plea of NOT guilty to the MURDER charge(which carries the mandatory death penalty)...when it was read to him to begin with...???

Though he had submitted his testimony to the court...the juries weren't convinced n didn't believe it could be 2nd degree murder...or manslaughter.

It is a fact that Chian confessed to a murder charge and the only penalty if found guilty is death by hanging.

My bone of contention is that the defense lawyer could have done a better job for his client in asking for a reduced charge of manslaughter in light of the circumstances, before the charges are read out and his plea recorded.

As for the juries you mentioned.... no more juries are used anymore in the Malaysian legal system. Even assuming there are, they wouldn't be deliberating whether Chian 'qualifies' for a reduced charge, as they are only responsible in pronouncing him guilty or innocent as charged.

hkpoh
20-02-2006, 05:33 PM
hm..... mayb because it's not the judge's son, so who cares.
Just like wat every1 say "it's not me, who cares".

To the judge,
Rape case already jail for 10 years, but a life only jail for 5 years, so that means, killing hundred of life jail for 10 days? I guess his brain is where he sit everyday.
whatever you have done now, will gain 3 times in return. That's what most of us believe.

de_scorpio
20-02-2006, 09:22 PM
I know Chian, he was my school mate, my the other friend told me tht he was very regret, and he thought by surrenderring himself and telling the truth can get lighter sentence, who knows....aii..sometime when people just made a mistake and thts it....gone. I pray God bless his and the victim's soul.

My personal wish, I hope the lawyer can do better in the appeal.

kwchang
20-02-2006, 11:40 PM
OK, I know there is a slight digression of topic here with the addition of the killing of the Russian girl by her admirer .....

I'm not a lawyer or even a "wanna-be" (as suggested by someone who accused me of running kangaroo courts some time ago) ... but maybe too much TV movies in my past.... am I right to say that the defense should have either pleaded insanity or even a crime of passion? I believe at the point of rejection by the woman of his obsessive fantasies, this guy was not in the right state of mind.

kwchang
20-02-2006, 11:42 PM
As for the topic of this discussion, please be reminded that the Attorney General is moving for a retrial or appeal to impose a stronger sentance. Just wait for the hearing again. No point debating this issue before that comes around.

Jose Mourinho
21-02-2006, 10:17 AM
I'm not a lawyer or even a "wanna-be" (as suggested by someone who accused me of running kangaroo courts some time ago) ... but maybe too much TV movies in my past.... am I right to say that the defense should have either pleaded insanity or even a crime of passion? I believe at the point of rejection by the woman of his obsessive fantasies, this guy was not in the right state of mind.

Not so much an insanity plea but a diminished responsibility plea.

Jose Mourinho
21-02-2006, 10:33 AM
aii..sometime when people just made a mistake and thts it....gone. I pray God bless his and the victim's soul.

The 'sometimes when people made just a mistake....' you mentioned.

The mistake is the taking away of the life of another. It is not just a mistake. It is a horrendous crime.

orchipalar
21-02-2006, 11:33 AM
It is a horrendous crime.Err...yes in the case of the people vs. Chian...Chian is found guilty of MURDERING Sara...in the 1st degree so to speak...which carries the mandatory death penalty.

n yes...in the case of the people vs. 5 Thais...they are found guilty of MANSLAUGHTERING Darren...in the second degree so to speak...for which they were sentenced to 5 years jail terms each...NO rottan?

But anyway...justice has been somewhat served...n yet many are still crying bluddy foul play or something like that...

For the brutal MURDER case of Canny Ong...the perpetrator Ahmad Najib Aris was found guilty n sentenced to death also...last year...http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/33816 ...but currently he could still be living under prison welfare...

But for the brutal murder case of Norita Samsudin...the perpetrator is still at large...

n for the brutal murder n rape case of a 7 year old gal who died of internal bleeding(resulted when a piece of 2"x2" scrapped construction wooden block was forced thru into her private part) which happened in the 80s...the perpetrator is still at large...

Err...how many more victims suffered n perished in silence...how many would remember...n how many have wept or cried over so many injustice...???

Jose Mourinho
21-02-2006, 11:44 AM
n yes...in the case of the people vs. 5 Thais...they are found guilty of MANSLAUGHTERING Darren...in the second degree so to speak...for which they were sentenced to 5 years jail terms each...NO rottan?

But anyway...justice has been somewhat served...n yet many are still crying bluddy foul play or something like that...

Many are still crying bluddy foul play? None less than the Attorney-General and he moving for a re-trial. The A-G is not just 'some' or 'many'. He is a learned man (of law) of stature and clout. Whether it is public opinions which sway him or not, he probably cannot stomach the Mickey Mouse sentence.

:)

JackRyan1975
21-02-2006, 12:05 PM
But anyway...justice has been somewhat served...n yet many are still crying bluddy foul play or something like that...

The due procedure of law has taken place. No two ways about that. The question is whether 5 years is a deterrent to others beating up a person to death, with whatever excuses. In my opinion, the High Court has set a bad precedent. We shall await the outcome of the Court of Appeal.

By the way Jose Mourinho, the 5 convicts would NOT be out in the streets in 5 years time. They would be out probably early next year as the sentence runs from the date they were arrested 2 years ago and less all the holidays.

Jose Mourinho
21-02-2006, 12:05 PM
I have checked. They will be out by July 2009.

Jose Mourinho
21-02-2006, 12:12 PM
For the brutal MURDER case of Canny Ong...the perpetrator Ahmad Najib Aris was found guilty n sentenced to death also...last year...http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/33816 ...but currently he could still be living under prison welfare...

Ahmad Najib (or rather, his lawyers) is appealing against his death sentence.

JackRyan1975
27-02-2006, 03:10 PM
This one just in....

IPOH: A store supervisor, who had been remanded since being charged for murder almost seven years ago, was sentenced to 14 years jail after pleading guilty to a lesser charge on Monday.

Ng Boon Tee, 26, admitted to killing his girlfriend’s Indonesian maid Sumiyati Muniri, 25, at the maid’s workplace at No 60, Leboh Taman Pertama, here, between 10.30pm on April 17, 1999, and 2.15am the next day.

High Court judge Justice V.T. Singham ordered Ng to serve the jail term from his date of arrest on April 20, 1999.

According to the facts of the case, Ng claimed that the maid had seduced him by undressing herself when they were alone in a room in the house.

The maid pulled out a knife and asked to be paid for sexual favours while he was undressing himself.

He retaliated by smashing her head with a perfume bottle before stabbing her with the knife.

Ng also hit her on the face with a golf club before strangling her with an electrical wire.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/2/27/nation/20060227143746&sec=nation

I wonder if there is need for all that violence just to subdue her. Life seems so cheap these days.

Jose Mourinho
27-02-2006, 03:28 PM
A lesser charge? After using a sledge-hammer to kill an ant?