hello, I said visiting prostitutes VERSUS having affairs, flings or worse molesting/raping women, goodness!! :stupid:
limlim:You very sharp leh..... I didn't even read that part.....[/quote]Excuse me, what's so immoral about molesting or raping a women? Goodness. :slapshead: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?
concern2:Yes I agree with you that we should not be setting our own moral standards based on what is legal and not legal.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.
phtthp:whether legal or not, men should Not visit prostitute !
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??
While I’m not saying the men are entirely faultless (what they did was indeed morally questionable, but then again everyone has different moral yardsticks), but my bugbear really is in how fair the law is.
Shouldn’t the law seek to be fair to all parties, and that it is based on reasonableness?
How reasonable is it to expect men to check a prostitute’s IC, it is not something that a reasonable person would do. Similarly, how reasonable is it to expect prostitutes to display their real IC when it contains private information about themselves?
From what I gather criminal justice seeks to achieve 3 objectives:
1. To protect society from the offender by removing him from society (jail)
2. To rehabilitate the offender
3. To seek redress for the victim
In this case, are any of the 3 objectives achieved?
1. What harm will they do to society that requires them to be locked up? They aren’t rapists or molestors, and by the way, prostitution is legal in Singapore, so seeking prostitutes by itself is a legally acceptable act
2. What is there to rehabilitate? They are simply suay that they got conned. How to avoid being suay? Check next time? But even if you check and you get deceived, still get whacked. Don’t visit prostitutes? But its not illegal, the government says its ok. What exactly is the message here being sent?
3. To seek redress for the victim? Is the girl even a victim in the first place? I guess enough have been said about her
So really, what good is achieved that can justify by destroying 51 men and not only them but their families?
Does the punishment fit the crime?
What if one of the 51 is your brother? (Note I am avoiding using husband here given the sensitivity and all the moralistic arguments it will throw up).
So if the man had asked for and been showed a fake IC by the girl, it would have been relevant?
Guess what, even if the above is true, the man would still be guilty according to the law.
Is it fair that the actions of the girl is totally disregarded here in this instance? Even in the case of rape, the girl has to object for there to be a case of rape, and in murder/assault where provocation by the other party is also a considered factor.
Worse, what is to stop the next underaged girl to use a fake IC and deceive people into having sex with her and having many men unwittingly breaking the law and getting punished? And if she's any more enterprising she may just blackmail all these clients if not she will report to the police since the law is so lopsided.
Also, do you think any action should be taken on the girl for using a fake IC? So far no action has been taken on her and she is still classified as a victim with her identity protected.
limlim:Yes of coz.sgmodel:Do you all think that a jail sentence is warranted in light of this revelation?
[quote]Underage prostitute 'had false IC stating age as 19'
Source: Straits Times
Date: 21 Nov 2012
Author: Elena Chong
THE underage prostitute at the centre of the online sex ring case apparently had a forged identity card saying she was over 18, a court heard yesterday.
This was revealed by lawyer Peter Fernando, whose client was jailed for 11 weeks yesterday after paying $650 for sex with the minor at a hotel in Bencoolen Street in January last year.
Urging the court to impose a stiff fine or call for a pre-sentence report, he said there were enough mitigating factors for Choong Sin Jian, 28, to be given a non-custodial sentence.
He said evidence the minor had the false IC showing she was 19 years old was found in text messages sent last year between her and pimp Tang Boon Thiew, 39.
Tang, whose case is pending, had told the girl not to bring her card. She asked why, adding that the IC she had with her stated her age as 19.
But Senior District Judge See Kee Oon disagreed that there was any mitigating force in the arguments.
\"The sentencing court's focus must be on what the accused had done to avoid committing the offence,\" he said. \"The incontrovertible fact is that he had not made any attempt to inquire about or verify the minor's age.\"
The judge added that the Singapore permanent resident, who worked as an accounts manager at the time, had allowed himself to be misled by choosing not to exercise due diligence.
\"That undermines his claims of having strong mitigating factors in his favour which would warrant consideration for probation or a fine,\" he said.
Although Choong did not plead guilty at an early stage, the judge gave him some credit for doing so eventually and for his readiness to account for his actions.
The girl was only about two months away from her 18th birthday at the time. The judge said this did not absolve Choong from liability even if it may lend some credence to his claims of being potentially honestly and reasonably mistaken about her age.
Choong had a second similar charge taken into consideration. He is the 15th man to be sentenced so far for having sex with the same girl.
Email: elena @sph.com.sg
Source: Straits TimesSingapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
Do you all think that a jail sentence is warranted in light of this revelation?
[quote]Underage prostitute 'had false IC stating age as 19'
Source: Straits Times
Date: 21 Nov 2012
Author: Elena Chong
THE underage prostitute at the centre of the online sex ring case apparently had a forged identity card saying she was over 18, a court heard yesterday.
This was revealed by lawyer Peter Fernando, whose client was jailed for 11 weeks yesterday after paying $650 for sex with the minor at a hotel in Bencoolen Street in January last year.
Urging the court to impose a stiff fine or call for a pre-sentence report, he said there were enough mitigating factors for Choong Sin Jian, 28, to be given a non-custodial sentence.
He said evidence the minor had the false IC showing she was 19 years old was found in text messages sent last year between her and pimp Tang Boon Thiew, 39.
Tang, whose case is pending, had told the girl not to bring her card. She asked why, adding that the IC she had with her stated her age as 19.
But Senior District Judge See Kee Oon disagreed that there was any mitigating force in the arguments.
\"The sentencing court's focus must be on what the accused had done to avoid committing the offence,\" he said. \"The incontrovertible fact is that he had not made any attempt to inquire about or verify the minor's age.\"
The judge added that the Singapore permanent resident, who worked as an accounts manager at the time, had allowed himself to be misled by choosing not to exercise due diligence.
\"That undermines his claims of having strong mitigating factors in his favour which would warrant consideration for probation or a fine,\" he said.
Although Choong did not plead guilty at an early stage, the judge gave him some credit for doing so eventually and for his readiness to account for his actions.
The girl was only about two months away from her 18th birthday at the time. The judge said this did not absolve Choong from liability even if it may lend some credence to his claims of being potentially honestly and reasonably mistaken about her age.
Choong had a second similar charge taken into consideration. He is the 15th man to be sentenced so far for having sex with the same girl.
Email: elena @sph.com.sg
Source: Straits Times Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.[/quote]