Chan Sek Keong, “From Justice Model to Crime Model” (2006): Main arguments on Crime Control Model?
Chan Sek Keong, “From Justice Model to Crime Model” (2006): Main arguments on Due Process Model?
Chan Sek Keong, “From Justice Model to Crime Model” (2006): Singapore’s legal framework?
Began shift from DPM to CCM as early as 1959.
3 components; combination of these laws cases a wide net that makes it difficult for factually guilty offenders to escape conviction:
Chan Sek Keong, “From Justice Model to Crime Model” (2006): Counter-argument to pro-CCM legal model?
DPM is present through golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence, prevalent in large majority of offences esp in CPC (targeted at very serious offences).
Chan Sek Keong, “From Justice Model to Crime Model” (2006): What is an acceptable model of CJS?
CJS must effectively meet the expectations of the people it is designed to serve.
Involves equilibrium that reflects a jurisdiction’s belief in balancing due process and crime control according to its cultural, moral and political values.
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): What is Singapore’s official position?
Utilitarian argument:
Measures which appear to trample upon human rights in the context of criminal justice are justified by gains in dealing effectively with crime and not putting the innocent in jeopardy.
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): How is SG’s CJS a stark utilitarian calculus?
Willingness to trade in respect for human rights for better crime control.
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): No clear evidence criticism?
No clear evidence that increased conviction of the guilty will lead to a deterrent effect on potential offenders, or that innocent will not be ensnared.
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): Moral argument criticism?
There are things that should be sacrosanct and immune from utilitarian barter.
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): Why does moral discourse not feature prominently in official decision making?
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001):
Utilitarian stance of SG’s CJS - Theme of reliance on official discretion?
Theme of reliance on official discretion
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001):
Utilitarian stance of SG’s CJS - Drift net crimes?
Drift net crimes (broadly defined offences)
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): E.g. of SG’s CJS utilitarian stance?
Detention without trial
Safeguards:
Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process” (2001): CJS’s link with quality of life?
Quality of life is intimately linked with how society deals with moral issues.
A rigidly utilitarian society is a soulless one, efficient and affluent at the cost of moral apathy.
Chan Sek Keong, “New Challenges to the Criminal Justice System in ‘Rethinking the Criminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21st Century” in The Singapore Conference: Leading to the Law and Lawyers into the new millennium @ 2020 (2000):
What are the 3 challenges?
Chan Sek Keong, “New Challenges to the Criminal Justice System in ‘Rethinking the Criminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21st Century” in The Singapore Conference: Leading to the Law and Lawyers into the new millennium @ 2020 (2000):
Fundamental rights in criminal justice?
Influence from ECHR may affect conception of fair trial, and the structure of rules of law, evidence and procedure to achieve a fair trial.
Confers similar but broader rights in as much as they are expressed in open-ended language, thus allowing the courts to interpret their scope according to the prevailing morality or ideology.
Example: Issue of capital and corporal punishment.
Chan Sek Keong, “New Challenges to the Criminal Justice System in ‘Rethinking the Criminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21st Century” in The Singapore Conference: Leading to the Law and Lawyers into the new millennium @ 2020 (2000):
Making laws clear?
Case law on strict liability offences is difficult in UK and Singapore.
Compared with PC: Drafting technique used for PC is to define every expression and offence, make explicit the requisite mental element of any offence, provide a list of defences applicable etc.
Hence, it is practically impossible to misunderstand the Penal Code.
Therefore, strict liability offences should be drafted clearly.
Chan Sek Keong, “New Challenges to the Criminal Justice System in ‘Rethinking the Criminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21st Century” in The Singapore Conference: Leading to the Law and Lawyers into the new millennium @ 2020 (2000):
Improving prosecutorial decision making?
In the past: Quality of decision depended entirely on the quality of the DPP making it.
Now: Requires the collective input of a selected body of DPPs.
Decision-making process is more focused, systematic and objective.
Example: Serious offence decisions under 3 or more levels of evaluation
Guarantees the integrity and contributes to the efficiency of the criminal justice system by ensuring that there are no unjustifiable prosecutions and only unsuccessful ones.
Chan Sek Keong, “New Challenges to the Criminal Justice System in ‘Rethinking the Criminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21st Century” in The Singapore Conference: Leading to the Law and Lawyers into the new millennium @ 2020 (2000):
Stance on CJS v individual rights?
We should not be apologetic or defensive about a criminal justice system that is effective in reducing the incidence of crime in society.
Individual rights are only meaningful in the context of an established social order, without which, are meaningless.