Of Law and Justice
Judging from the comments to this post,
http://blog.thestar.com.my/permalink.asp?id=27509#comment
snatch-thieves must be regarded to be the lowest life form on earth in Malaysia at the moment. So much so that many of you protest the lawfulprosecution of the "victim" who caused his death, presumably by accident.
Some, more than ready to judge that death was his just dessert for his crime.
No doubt many of the comments are fueled by the rage and anger of many a good heart enraged by the many snatch-thief attacks on innocent men and women, many of whom themselves are frail and vulnerable. Some, resulting in death.
So it is understandable why many question the due process of the law that is now being carried out.
I think this case illustrates so clearly that despite how highly we human beings think of ourselves, we are all in the end creatures of emotions. Despite our best efforts to be logical and "to think", in the end many of our values, decisions and perceptions are shaped by our emotions.
That is why men who can stir crowds with rousing speeches are very dangerous men indeed and also why we must always be on our guard against whispers crafted to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the good people.
Let's take a step back and examine what has happened with a cool head.
Snatch-thief snatches bag. Drives into a dead end. Victim crashes her car into snatch thief. Snatch thief dies.
That is all we really know.
We don't know if this particular snatch-thief is the same snatch-thief whom has attacked all the other victims and caused the death and permanent disability of his victims all over Malaysia.
We don't know if this snatch-thief is someone who is doing it for the first time.
We don't know if he did it to feed starving children or to feed a drug habit.
What we do know is that he tried to trick the driver of the car for money in the first instance,and as far as is reported, he did not use a weapon to attack the driver.
Do those of you who passed the death sentence spontaneously now feel any differently?
Do you believed that he still deserves to be run down for snatching a bag?
What is the worth of life to you?
If I was a Jain practitioner, I would be aghast at some of the flippant regard to life shown by some of you.
For the Jain carries with them a small broom which they use to sweep the floor or wherever they intend to sit to make sure that no insect, no matter how small, gets flatten and killed.
Ignorance is no excuse for taking a life no matter how "insignificant"
That is how much they value life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
For most of us, we lead a more practical life and I myself is definitely not disciplined nor compassionate enough to live such a life.
But we, as human beings with a rational mind, should strive to be mindful and not let our emotions get the better of us.
We should always strive to get all ours facts right and consider them in a cool passionless state of mind and not let past events or experiences colour our judgement.
For if we let ourselves pass judgement on others with impunity, based only on prejudiced beliefs and half-facts, we are setting ourselves on a slippery slope that may lead us to a place not very different from the mob-lynching and Ku Klux Klan style of judgement and execution that should really stay in the dark ages.
To justify the killing of another human being based on self-defence is similar to the Bush doctrine of "Pre-emptive Attack" war strategy.
As you can all see, it is very easy to pervert this honourable principle to become a justification for aggression and mass murder.
This doesn't mean that if faced with a armed and dangerous criminal, we should all just stand there and wait to be shot and watch our loved ones die.
Every situation is different and that is why there are laws and courts to decide for us. If you are certain that you are acting in self-defence, than by all means, do what you must to protect your own life and those of your love ones.
Lao Tzu commented that when we punish someone, we should not be too severe. When we set standards for others, it should not be too high and unattainable.
I am no lawyer and nor magistrate so I cannot comment on what should happen to the driver of the car. I do not pretend to know what is the "best punishment" for snatch-thieves either.
Perhaps for those feeding a drug habit, rehabilitation would probably be a better option. For those unemployed with with starving children, I think it's obvious....
For those who cause death or serious injury, they must be caught and should be charged with either murder or man-slaughter or attempt to do so.
At the end of the day, I do believe that the due process of the law must be carried out.
No one is above the law.
This single principle is what keeps all of us safe and secure. This is the only basis of a civilised society and civilised world.
We should not let our emotions tempt us to think that we, as individuals with little detailed information, knows best.
Lady Justice must always have the power and authority to carry out the just punishments. Before she punishes, she must have the wisdom to weigh all the facts in order to be fair to all parties.
But most important of all, she must be blind and completely impartial to both parties when she is weighing up the evidence presented to her.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#cite_ref-0
This just proves to me that Malaysia is indeed a fair and just country, where even a publicly condemned dead man is accorded due consideration for justice in court.
Let no one ever say that there is no law in Malaysia.
Lady Justice
"Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality."
RSS
Comments
Can the same argument be applied to the case where five men in a car, en route to execute a robbery near Klang earlier Sunday ( 08 Nov) were killed by the police.
Can the police be charged? Pls enlighten, thanks.
However, this is an induced accident, rather than the victim purposely rammed the snatch thief to death. In normal accident that causes death, the driver will be jailed. But in this case, there's a different element.
Did the snatch thief deserve to die? No. Did the victim deserve the ill-fated consequence of being arrested? No.
Now, picture this. If the snatch thief was rammed but survived, what should be the verdict? Arrest the thief or the victim?
"Snatch-thief snatches bag. Drives into a dead end. Victim crashes her car into snatch thief. Snatch thief dies.". > This is too simplistic, and biased. Again, you missed the most important point: it was an accident. So, stop depicting the poor woman as an intentional killer.
In the recent case, I recalled that the death of the agent provocateur was caused by accident as a result of loss of control over the car. So, until the evidence could prove otherwise, initially the accused could be charged for third-degree murder. Yes, death is death still, and no one that committed unlawful murder would get away, but we still need to take into consideration the predicament and motive of both the accused and the deceased at the time of the incident.
I couldn't really blame the accused for going all the way to get back at the thief. Look at the recent cases involving big-time organized crime gangs. They were all convicted once, and once released, they decided to pursue their criminal life once again. Is our justice too lenient? If the thief escaped, who could guarantee that he/she would opt not to do it again?
Previously we are only the victim. Now due to the karma of killing, we have to suffer and burn in HELL...even if the person we kill is a killer. All the same, he suffers his own karma, I suffer my own karma.
If you don't believe in karma, it is the same. To each, his own punishment by God. We suffer the consequences of OUR OWN actions. Know that firmly and we will not take the law into our own hands. If we still do, then be prepared to suffer the consequences.
it's safer that way.
even the police have to move their beat base from crime-prone areas like ChowKit, due to it being an unsafe zone.
so, act smart, like the police. SHY AWAY. and you will be assured of safety and peace-of-mind.
cheers.
But beg to differ, on 3 aspects, which are recognize in legal aspects.
a) Pre-meditated murder.
b) Circumstanstial crime.
c) Manslaughther.
a) Is a murder with a motive. The reason why a person is murdered. For the benefits of the murderer, to silence something and etc. The killings is planned and executed.
Cases like a women walking to carpark got kidnapped, raped and killed. 1st degree murder.
b) Circumstantial crime, was the reaction, reactive act, reprobative act upon an action subject to an individual. While walking toward your, suddenly some one appeared and punch/attack us in order or criminal reasons. You've reacted and accidentally killed or injured that propagator of crime. This is circumstanstial.
c) Manslaughter, this usually derives from accidental act, the causes a live taken. Two guys were fighting over a girl. Both of them are drunk, one guy end up dead.
They were not in any intention to kill each other but it end-up this way. It is a manslaughther.
So, in human perspective, that snatch thief ask for it (if you ask me), for his predicament of ending up dead.
Killings is evil, but the circumstances lead to his death was started by himself at the very beginning.
If that woman crash on him without any reasons accept she feels like it, that is murder or case of insanity.
So, it is a pity a life is loss, mercy of his souls, as he himself that lead his own life to such ending. If he do not resort to crimes, life will be different.
There's a big difference between an accidental killer and an intentional killer.
i'm sure one will not think the same when his family members are the victims. trust me. when that happens, moral values and stuffs like that just goes out of the window.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/9/27/nation/4793239&sec=nation
2. Snatch theft victim mourns loss of a friend
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/24/nation/4574022&sec=nation
And many more....
So what do we make of all these snatch thieves who has claimed the lives of innocent people? Have they been caught? Have they been punished? Or are they still out there tormenting people and trying to make a fast buck?
I agree that the victim should not have "killed" the thief. But how do we know that she didn't just lose control of her vehicle while chasing him; and thus knocking him down? I don't believe that she is a murderer. Going through such an incident could have traumatized the poor girl and she reacted.
To be honest, I really feel for her. My close friend had been robbed at knife-point. And fearing for her life, she let the thief take her belongings. But not many of us are able to hold our emotions and will panic when put in such a dangerous situation. Oh and btw, it was not reported on whether the thief extorted the lady into handing over her hp. So who are we to judge?
Firstly, I must clarify and reiterate my stand that:
"Every situation is different and that is why there are laws and courts to decide for us. If you are certain that you are acting in self-defence, than by all means, do what you must to protect your own life and those of your love ones."
and :
"I am no lawyer and nor magistrate so I cannot comment on what should happen to the driver of the car. I do not pretend to know what is the "best punishment" for snatch-thieves either"
So, the last thing I will do is to JUDGE that the driver of the car is evil or murderous.
Of course not. Who am I to judge her?
Please don't get me wrong, sun_goku.
On the contrary, I am saying that the rest of us should let the due process of the court take its course. After all, this is what a lot of vocal Malaysians demands on a daily basis on in the mass media and kopi-tiam.
The due unbiased blind consideration of the law.
What I do feel is sympathy for both the parties involved.
One for the already dead but still condemned snatch-thief of whose background none of us know about and has now been relegated to the heap-pile of the lowest of the low. Two, for the poor women who has been traumatised twice. One for being victim of snatch-thief. Two, for taking a life.
Perhaps, I should have made this point clearer in my original post.
Many of you think that it must feel great to take a life. Especially when it is "justified".
I beg to differ. I have spoken to many a war veteran in World War 2 and the Korean War and they tell a different story. Perhaps there are people who enjoy taking life. But for most, they have to relive the trauma and sometimes, the recurring nightmare of seeing the dead bodies around them.
Many American GIs become mentally unstable when they return from the Vietnam War, and the reason shootings at Fort Hood in America just shows that this hasn't change. We are still human. Even American GI soldiers on a mission to "save the world".
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5A454F20091105
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
It is remembrance time in UK at present. 90 years since the end of the War to end all Wars. There was a documentary on the experiences of one British soldier. Barely out of his teenage years, he went to the Somme, full of valour and looking forward to "wiping out the enemy". He was in charge of artillery, and at one battle they pounded the German position to kingdom come. Nothing was left after the hours of shelling but mangled barb-wire and pieces of human body parts.
When they then moved to take over the enemy position, he come across the body of a dead German soldier, which was still miraculously intact, who could not be older than himself. The dead soldier was holding a picture of a young girl in his hand, who looks like a mirror image of his own fiance whom he had left in England. It was signed at the back with the words "Ich liebe dich".
That incident completely changed his mind about the war and killing. He was filled with remorse as now, the "enemy" are no longer the spawn of the devil, but real people like himself and his loved ones at home.
So what did he do?
To desert the army would have lead to court-martial and possible execution. To continue killing he could no longer face his conscience and he could bear no more.
So he did the best thing that he could. He remained in charge of the artillery, but from now on, he made sure that his first barrages always miss the intended target. So that the German troops have an opportunity to get away before the second barrages wipe out their position. He only confessed to this before his death many years on.
To me, this is what being a human being and what being a true "hero" is all about. Restraining oneself despite having the power and right to kill.
15 million people died in WW1. 100 million in WW2. How many more deaths can we "justify" as human beings?
At the end of the day, we can only decide what is the right path for ourselves and refrain passing judgment on others on what path they choose to walk for themselves.
We just need to remind ourselves that as individuals, we have the ability to choose our own paths.
As to the question of whether I know how it feels to be a victim ?
Yes I do. I was man-handled and robbed in broad daylight in a full underground train in Prague by a group of 6-7 Europeans men (presumed to be eastern Europeans) and I was beaten up by drunken youths in Dublin when I was just passing by (bad luck or bad karma?).
So I have great empathy for all victims of crime alike.
Sentosa, your comments are very interesting. Gandhi would have done exactly what you say you do.
MYDingling,
I do not know the details of the case you mentioned so I cannot comment. I believe it all depends on whether the police have justifiable grounds to deem these people armed and dangerous.
Perhaps they have been trailed and have had a succession of armed robberies and murder behind them.
The execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, an innocent civilian, by the British Police is a good example of your question.
He was chased and pinned to the ground in the London Underground train before being shot 8 times in his head.
See:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165960,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-dramatic-scenes
The policemen involved were all found not guilty of murder or manslaughter. They were not disciplined in any way and two remains un-named and hence anonymous up to today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
At then end of the day, before judging someone, it is good if you knew a little bit more about them first. Otherwise, "judgment" is nothing but overvalued and loudly proclaimed prejudism.
Thank you.
I have found the news article on your query.
You have been a little economical on the details of the case, failing to mention that:
"In this particular case, there was a high speed car chase where the robbers tried to force the pursuing police vehicle off the road while firing shots indiscriminately at them."
"http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/11/10/nation/20091110203944&sec=nation"
The answer is clear, I think.
Please be more detailed in your comments next time, especially when you are giving such specific examples and not be so mischievous that you may give people who don't know the case a false impression of the Royal Malaysian Police
Thank you.
You could have asked instead of spending so much time in searching, there is nothing to hide. The news I referred to is from Bernama. News title: “Five Criminal Shot Death”.
"Books are as useful to a stupid person as a mirror is useful to a blind person." Almost daily now we are subject to the painful and most uncomfortable sensation of having some one takes us for fools.
So, you faithfully believe that all cases involved police shoot out always caused by the stupid outlaws who discharged their first ammunition and end up ALL dead
Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her,
$1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.
have anyone ever hesitated one single second before you slit the chicken's throat? is that not a life?
why not all convert to vegetarians?
or maybe let the chef do it, that way we feel better eating meat.
Phew!!
Yet again, you have not given a link to your story but claims that it is from "Bernama". I have searched and found this particular article at:
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=453530
ANd I quote from the article:
"the driver of the Kelisa inside which were his four accomplices, tried to mow down a team of policemen who had asked them to alight from the vehicle for inspection.
At that juncture, the gunmen fired in the direction of the police who returned fire, killing them on the spot at Sungai Keramat in Jalan Kapar, Klang Utama."
You have been even more economical with the facts than previously thought.
And you say:
"Almost daily now we are subject to the painful and most uncomfortable sensation of having some one takes us for fools."
Yes, that is true. That is why I am so "paranoid" about people spreading FUD.
I see no point in further discussing this matter with you as you have clearly made up your mind about the modus operandi of the RMP. Matters not that they are robbers on the way to a robbery and armed with guns...
Hey, for all we know, they could be Greenpeace activists on the way to KLIA to save the penan tribe in Sarawak but have been executed in a conspiracy which involved multi-national companies of which the RMP is part of.
All the rest are just made up...
I can make up any story that I like and claim that it is the "truth".
That is why the principle of:
"Innocent until proven guilty" forms the most important basis of any civilised society.
Alas, we now live in the age of the borderless and uncivilised world of the Internet. And proud of it.
This is the problem with the "mass media" that exist now.
Instead of being a fountain of knowledge, it poisons minds and hearts. Instead of giving answers, it sows the seeds of suspicion and doubt. Instead of bringing man closer together, it allows people to behave at their and have full expression in the name of "freedom of speech".
Instead of upholding Justice and democracy, it facilitates the spread of fear, uncertainty and doubt and the manipulation of the masses of good people all over the world.
Little knowledge is dangerous. Don't forget that.
It is always good to "Doubt what you know". But if you are truly seeking the truth, you must also make the effort to "Know what you doubt". Don't justify your prejudices with your doubts.
You say:
"Books are as useful to a stupid person as a mirror is useful to a blind person."
But even a fool if he reads enough will become less of a fool. I still read for there is much to learn.
I suggest you do so too, but more from books and less from blogs and Internet sources like this.
Why?
Because to benefit form the spreading of fear, doubt and uncertainty, the message needs to reach the masses in as short a time as possible. Hence the internet with its millions of "blogs" is the ideal media. There is no real author nor accountability. Anyone can be anyone they want to be. Infact, some bloggers are not human but "Web-bots", designed to specifically spread a message.
On the other hand, the real "Facts" and "Truths" will not change with the passage of time. Hence, "truths" and "wisdom" discovered by other human beings find their way to you by books which takes months and years to publish but lasts a lifetime.
And you can always put a face to the book.
A worthwhile investment.
Thank you.
You are right.
The mass slaughter of animals for human consumption is an "inconvenient truth". That is why we buy, order and eat beef and pork, not cows and pigs.
Chicken? Well, human beings don't seem to mind slaughtering chicken so we call it for what it is.
Justified killing and taking of life?
Most people think so. Those who believe otherwise become vegetarians.
But what perhaps is not justified is the massive wastage of food that occurs in the developed and urban world. In my opinion, this happens because we have become so efficient at producing "food" that the end consumer does not have to see the messy part where the necks of these animals are slit or electrocuted to death.
That are spared the "death cries" of cows and pigs being led to slaughter. My old father says that the cows even have tears as they are being prepared for slaughter.
They know the fate that awaits them.
So, what does it matter if we order or cook more than we can eat and throw the excess away. It is our "right" because we can afford it. Because we are on the "top of the food chain".
What is sad is not that we are not all vegetarians, but we have become so "civilised" and "modern" that the lives of lesser beings have become inconsequential.
If we remind ourselves that one life has been taken so that ours can be enriched, then perhaps, all of us would be less wasteful and less of a glutton.
You may ask why should we bother, being at the top of the food chain?
A healthier body and soul is the answer.