Principal of top school under investigation for hiring prost

[sgmodel]

limlim,


This legislation was drafted as a \"strict liability\" offence whereby an offender will be automatically guilty regardless of intent. In PP v Tan Chye Hin, the High Court judge had given a sentencing benchmark that spells out the culpability spectrum, whereby it was defined that the only way an offender could have gotten off with a fine was that he was shown a fake IC that causes him to believe that the girl was of legal age. Do note that this still means that the verdict will be guilty even if the offender was deceived.

Also, if you had read the article, it was already stated that the girl had in her possession an IC stating her age as 19, and not as a 40 year old man. It is also stated that she had wanted to bring along the IC when meeting up with the client, why do you think this is so? To show off her private fake IC collection as you claim? Now I think it is obvious what her intentions for the fake IC is for, and hence I do not see any point in arguing for the sake of arguing by throwing in unlikely and far fetched scenarios.

Now in the case of rape, if no objection was given then obviously it is rape but if consent was given then no rape occurred. So definitely the actions (or inaction if you may so argue) definitely is a factor for consideration. Just look at the recent PP v Ong Ming Hwee.

In the case of murder, charges may be amended to a lesser charge based on the actions of the other party, such as whether the accused had acted in self defence, whether there was provocation etc. How do you prove \"intent\"? Through examination of the circumstances which must include the actions of the other party.

You don't believe how easily can a person be charged or held ransom? Well if today I'm a 17 year old, I prostitute myself and deceive you into thinking I'm above age, and then to tell you actually I'm a minor. And then I ask you to pay me a sum of money failing which I will report you to the police, do you think the man will pay up or dare me to report police, especially after seeing how this case is being handled? Maybe you're thinking it should be obvious if the IC is fake? Well of cos if she's using her dad or mom's IC then it's a dead giveaway, but do you think someone with the intent to cheat will be so dumb? Go look at the clubs, how many girls are entering the clubs with fake ICs?

Going to your example of a handphone shop. If we apply the same logic of this law to the law pertaining to possession of stolen goods, it would mean that the shop is automatically guilty as long as the stolen handphone is in its possession, even if it had checked the IC of the seller (and whether the seller had used a fake IC or not is irrelevant to the guilt of the shop). Does this sound fair to you?

Renting of property to illegal immigrants; even if you were shown forged documents and reasonably believed that they were real and had unwittingly broken the law, you would still be found guilty. It's not even about checking or not checking. Read here: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000407st.htm Again, is this fair?

I agree with you that demand for underaged prostitution is undesirable and will lead to exploitation of minors, but in this case, was the demand for underaged prostitution in the first place??

[sgmodel]

phtthp:

whether legal or not, men should Not visit prostitute !

whether moral or not, it should not be the determining factor for guilt in the courts!

what's legal may not be moral, what's moral may not be legal, I hope you don't mix up legality and morality here.

should michael palmer be jailed too since he had an EMA and hence had engaged in an immoral activity?

[sgmodel]

concern2:

sgmodel:

Don't visit prostitutes? But its not illegal, the government says its ok. What exactly is the message here being sent?

Prostitution is a complex issue and is a subject of study of its own. However, in our day to day affairs, we should not be setting our own moral standards based on what is legal and not legal. Just because it is made legal does not mean it is a right / good thing to do.

Yes I agree with you that we should not be setting our own moral standards based on what is legal and not legal.

And that's precisely why we shouldn't be making statements to the effect that however these men are treated under the law is justified since they did something immoral and they should be punished for their immoral act.

In fact, if any one of them is single, what's so immoral about engaging the services of prostitutes vs having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women?

[concern2]

sgmodel:

In fact, if any one of them is single, what's so immoral about engaging the services of prostitutes vs having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women?

Excuse me, what's so immoral about molesting or raping a women? Goodness. :slapshead:

\"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself\". Understand what this means?

[limlim]

sgmodel:

This legislation was drafted as a \"strict liability\" offence whereby an offender will be automatically guilty regardless of intent. In PP v Tan Chye Hin, the High Court judge had given a sentencing benchmark that spells out the culpability spectrum, whereby it was defined that the only way an offender could have gotten off with a fine was that he was shown a fake IC that causes him to believe that the girl was of legal age. Do note that this still means that the verdict will be guilty even if the offender was deceived.

Once again, were there any examples of such cases?

It is said that an offender could hv gotten off with a fine if he was show a fake IC. It could be that in such case the IC is obviously fake.

If the IC is like real, or she use a friend's ic who looked so much like herself, I would feel that it is not fair to convict the man.

Let's not speculate on this.. until someone was indeed convicted when he is lead to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the prostitute is indeed of age. Then, I agree it is unfair and unjust to convict the man who exercised due diligent.

sgmodel:

Also, if you had read the article, it was already stated that the girl had in her possession an IC stating her age as 19, and not as a 40 year old man. It is also stated that she had wanted to bring along the IC when meeting up with the client, why do you think this is so? To show off her private fake IC collection as you claim? Now I think it is obvious what her intentions for the fake IC is for, and hence I do not see any point in arguing for the sake of arguing by throwing in unlikely and far fetched scenarios.

This is irrelevant to the argument. The crucial thing is the man did not check.

sgmodel:

Now in the case of rape, if no objection was given then obviously it is rape but if consent was given then no rape occurred. So definitely the actions (or inaction if you may so argue) definitely is a factor for consideration. Just look at the recent PP v Ong Ming Hwee.

In the case of murder, charges may be amended to a lesser charge based on the actions of the other party, such as whether the accused had acted in self defence, whether there was provocation etc. How do you prove \"intent\"? Through examination of the circumstances which must include the actions of the other party.

I did not say it is not a factor. I'm saying no objection doesn't mean consent, and provocation is not a necessity.

sgmodel:

You don't believe how easily can a person be charged or held ransom? Well if today I'm a 17 year old, I prostitute myself and deceive you into thinking I'm above age, and then to tell you actually I'm a minor. And then I ask you to pay me a sum of money failing which I will report you to the police, do you think the man will pay up or dare me to report police, especially after seeing how this case is being handled? Maybe you're thinking it should be obvious if the IC is fake? Well of cos if she's using her dad or mom's IC then it's a dead giveaway, but do you think someone with the intent to cheat will be so dumb? Go look at the clubs, how many girls are entering the clubs with fake ICs?

Again, you can succeed only if the man doesn't exercise due diligent.

Let's not speculate whether she indeed have a \"like real\" IC. You're assuming she does. Again, this is irrelevant.

What is relevant is, did she show it to the man? THAT, is the most important question that matters. And, if she indeed show it to the man, then, we consider if the IC can be believed to be hers or not.

sgmodel:

Going to your example of a handphone shop. If we apply the same logic of this law to the law pertaining to possession of stolen goods, it would mean that the shop is automatically guilty as long as the stolen handphone is in its possession, even if it had checked the IC of the seller (and whether the seller had used a fake IC or not is irrelevant to the guilt of the shop). Does this sound fair to you?

It doesn't matter whether the phone is still in the shop. If the shop didn't exercise due diligence, they are guilty of an offense.

If the shop checked, they would provide the particulars of the seller to the police and that's it. They have nothing more to do with the case.

The shop's obligation is only to check the particulars of the seller. I feel it is fair.

To provide some form of deterrence towards phone theft.

sgmodel:

Renting of property to illegal immigrants; even if you were shown forged documents and reasonably believed that they were real and had unwittingly broken the law, you would still be found guilty. It's not even about checking or not checking. Read here: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000407st.htm Again, is this fair?

Keyword is \"Due Diligence\".

If the prostitute showed her grandfather's IC and the man believes it is hers, that is not \"due diligence\". That is Gross negligence..

That is just an example to illustrate the point.. not to say she really had a collection of fake ICs or grandfathers IC.

[limlim]

concern2:

sgmodel:

In fact, if any one of them is single, what's so immoral about engaging the services of prostitutes vs having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women?

Excuse me, what's so immoral about molesting or raping a women? Goodness. :slapshead:

You very sharp leh..... I didn't even read that part.....

[sgmodel]

hello, I said visiting prostitutes VERSUS having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women, goodness!! :stupid:

limlim:

concern2:

[quote=\"sgmodel\"]In fact, if any one of them is single, what's so immoral about engaging the services of prostitutes vs having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women?

Excuse me, what's so immoral about molesting or raping a women? Goodness. :slapshead:

You very sharp leh..... I didn't even read that part.....[/quote]

[concern2]

sgmodel:

hello, I said visiting prostitutes VERSUS having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women, goodness!! :stupid:

ok ok, I wasn't very sharp, I went back to your post again and noticed. I see what you mean now.

Phew! At least now I know I'm not talking to a pervert!

[limlim]

sgmodel:

hello, I said visiting prostitutes VERSUS having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women, goodness!! :stupid:

Oops.. I didn't read that part too.. :evil:

[phtthp]

released from jail early


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/howard-shaw-released-from-jail-early--115122051.html