As a developed country, why does Singapore still have "caning"?

Category: Society and People's Livelihood >> Law

Analysis:

Singapore inherited the legal system from the United Kingdom. The whipping system also originated from Britain. The United Kingdom passed an amendment to the Criminal Law in 1861, limiting the caning system to prisoners under the age of sixteen. At the same time, discussions arose in the United Kingdom to abolish the death penalty, and there was also a discussion on the humane nature of caning. In addition to retaining the caning system for juvenile offenders, the British Parliament has also imposed caning for certain crimes in individual bills, such as the "Vagrancy Act Amendment Act" passed in 1898, for Those who exploit prostitutes for a living, and the White Slave Traffic Bill passed in 1912, punished those who trafficked in human beings. However, very little is actually implemented. On the contrary, there were many canings for juvenile offenders. From 1858 to 1860, the average number was 590 per year; in 1893, it reached 2,900; by 1900, it was as high as 3,400, and thereafter it dropped to about 2,000 per year. It was not until 1948, when the British Parliament passed the Criminal Justice Act of 1948, that the caning system was officially abolished by transferring juvenile offenders to reformatory schools instead of caning.

Singapore's independence (1959) was After flogging was abolished in the UK, flogging continued. Not only Singapore, there are 17 countries in the world today that implement similar caning [2]. However, among Southeast Asian countries, only Malaysia and Singapore have adopted it. The current types of caning punishments in Singapore were before the passage of the famous "Vandali *** Act" (Vandali *** Act) in 1966 for the purpose of maintaining city appearance, which punished graffiti and vandalism of public and private property with heavy fines. Caning is limited to crimes under the criminal law that cause serious physical and mental harm to people, including serious assault, robbery, rape and indecency. Before Singapore became independent, the colonial government had an extremely conservative attitude towards caning because its mother country, Britain, had already abolished caning. For example, in the case of Cim Thian Hen & Others v. Regina in 1953, Chief Justice Murray-Aynsley held that a simple crime of robbery may be a personal violation, but it is not too cruel, so there is no need to impose caning. However, after independence, the situation changed significantly; for example, in Yong Pak Yong v.P.P. (Public Prosecutor) in 1959, Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin held that the crime of intimidation was already a crime punishable by caning, and Anwar v. P.P. in 1963. , in one case, the court held that during times of racial conflict, disrespecting other religions was also a crime punishable by caning.

Regarding the punishment of caning, Article 231 of the Singapore Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal Procedure Code) stipulates that caning is limited to men under the age of fifty; Article 229 stipulates that adult offenders can be punished up to no more than More than twenty-four lashes; juvenile offenders (over seven years old and under 16 years old) are limited to ten lashes; Singapore can impose caning on children, which is intolerable in Western society. In addition, the law also has special provisions regarding the size of the whip. The horizontal width of the cane for adult criminals cannot exceed 1.27 centimeters, and the horizontal width of the cane for juvenile criminals is even smaller.

Singapore also emphasizes the effect of killing chickens to scare monkeys when carrying out caning. During the execution, although no public execution is adopted, the number of lashes is limited to three for each execution. After the injury recovers - at least It took three months before implementation continued. In addition, a doctor must conduct a health examination before execution. If the prisoner cannot bear the execution process, the caning will be suspended. At the same time, if the doctor determines that the prisoner's body can no longer withstand caning, he can petition the court to exempt him from caning, but the court may impose a prison sentence, which cannot exceed twelve months.

At first glance, these systems appear to be a punishment that is in line with the spirit of humanity, but in terms of criminal psychology, it is undoubtedly a clever trick. It exposes the horror of whipping: whipping is carried out in stages, and each period of treatment lasts for three months, during which the prisoner He can only sleep lying down, so the overall execution time is very long. At the same time, the scars after the whipping will remain on the body for life, forming a mark that can never be erased. Therefore, even if the average prisoner is punished with a small number of canings, it is enough to shock the prisoner for life. Therefore, there are very few recidivists in Singapore, mostly due to the fear of caning.

After Lee Kuan Yew promulgated the "Sabotage Act" in 1966, he took caning beyond its role as a criminal sanction and further used it as a tool to maintain social order. It stands to reason that posting advertisements, slogans or spray-painting on public buildings does not impede public health and order, nor is it a violent crime. Most countries usually impose fines, but Lee Kuan Yew's " However, this kind of behavior is punished with three to eight lashes. This kind of severe punishment is rare in democratic countries in the world. The main reason why caning in Singapore has attracted the attention of countries around the world is that the Michael Fay incident occurred in 1994, which changed the world's impression of Singapore from the lush and orderly appearance to that of Singapore. Change to the understanding that Singapore achieved this appearance because of the extremely harsh caning methods. Therefore, the Michael Fee incident can be said to be the best example of Singapore's caning system.