I quote from the article,

"[A] statement in the trial judge's grounds requires clarification. At para 48, the trial judge stated, in what appeared to us as an emphasis to his rejection of the first appellant's evidence:

I found he had wilfully turned a blind eye on the contents of the capsules because he was tempted by the US$2000, which was a large sum to him. ... Consequently, even if he may not have actual knowledge that he was carrying diamorphine, his ignorance did not exculpate him ... [emphasis added]."

I still have many doubts about the case. Firstly how is it possible for a person to detect the contents within capsules within the proper equipment? How much are the airfares Tochi incurred during his flights? Are they hundreds of dollars? Is US$2000 a large sum of money to Tochi if he could afford airplane flights costing hundreds of dollars? Was the US$2000 the payment that Tochi was to hand over to Smith or was part of it meant for him? (Tochi also lied about needing the US$2000 to enter Singapore.) Smith was deemed as dishonest to Tochi, did his lawyers try to prove that Tochi was being duped by Smith's lies? Was Tochi really wilfully ignorant or was he duped?

These crucial points are still unknown to me.

Thanks. Thats alot of hard work.

whybegay,

Those are actually very good questions. Your questions also serve to illustrate what Ben highlighted earlier, i.e. that "justice must not only done, but must be seen to be done".

Because the burden of proof is stacked against Tochi in the said case, there was no reason for the prosecution and/or defence to highlight these points/questions. Or perhaps they were brought up during the court proceedings but they were not "relevant" to the decision and were so omitted from the judgement.

The KTM believes that there are grounds to review the law again, but he doesn't believe that the review of the law in terms of burden of proof is likely to change the outcome in Tochi's case (700g of heroin is really a lot, though this is speculative as usual).

The law was last amended 14 years ago. Nobody really knows how a law would work out before it gets enacted. Given that 14 years has passed and things have happened since then, a review of the law given the experience of the last 14 years is not unreasonable.

Hello Whybegay.

I took a little while to respond to the comment because I needed to go read the case again for clarification. Don't mind if I cut and paste the facts from the case itself at Public Prosecutor v Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Another [2005] SGHC 233, because I'm a little tired tonight to paraphrase and explain. But I guess no one can say it clearer than the judge himself. =)

For the purposes of this comment (which I've broken up so that it doesn't need approval), everything that is taken from the case has a number before it. Your questions are italicised, and my small comments are the stuff that neither has numbers before it, nor are italicised. I hope this helps.

1. Firstly how is it possible for a person to detect the contents within capsules within the proper equipment?

8 The officers said that many items were discovered when they searched the blue bag. The most significant of the items were a red bucket-shaped "Maltesers" container, a pair of gloves and a pair of shoes. The 100 capsules which are the subject matter of the charges were found in the blue bag and in the Maltesers container, the gloves and the shoes. The capsules were securely wrapped in layers of aluminium foil, adhesive tape and plastic covering the core of powdery substance containing diamorphine.

9 When the first accused was asked if the capsules were chocolate he confirmed they were. When he was asked again if they were chocolate, he said they were actually herbs from Africa which tasted like chocolate, which gave strength when eaten, and he swallowed one capsule on his own. (He was later warded in hospital and induced to purge the capsule intact.)

10 The officers decided to cut open a capsule. When they suspected that the contents were drugs, they stopped the search and the Central Narcotics Bureau ("CNB") was notified. At the same time, the first accused and his bags were moved from the shower counter to Room 302 ("the hotel room") of the hotel.

12 Subsequently, when officers from the CNB arrived at the hotel room they opened one capsule which contents tested positive for controlled drugs.

2. How much are the airfares Tochi incurred during his flights? Are they hundreds of dollars?
3. Is US$2000 a large sum of money to Tochi if he could afford airplane flights costing hundreds of dollars?
4. Was the US$2000 the payment that Tochi was to hand over to Smith or was part of it meant for him? (Tochi also lied about needing the US$2000 to enter Singapore.)
5. Smith was deemed as dishonest to Tochi, did his lawyers try to prove that Tochi was being duped by Smith's lies?
6. Was Tochi really wilfully ignorant or was he duped?

Okay, I'll just cut and paste you the last 2 (of the 4) statements that Tochi made to the police (i.e. his version of the facts), which he claims to be the truth; the prosecution's case against him; his defence, and the final judgment. And from this you can decide for yourself.

28 When he declared that he was going to tell the truth in his third statement of 7 February 2005, he said that he went to Pakistan with the intention of travelling on to Dubai to play football there. After he arrived at Karachi he found that he could not get to Dubai from Pakistan. He remained in Karachi, where he subsequently met Smith. He told Smith of his intention to go to Dubai, and Smith agreed to help him. He travelled with Smith from Karachi to Kabul, Afghanistan and then to Dubai airport, but was unable to enter Dubai. At the airport, Smith asked him to deliver something in a bag to his friend, Marshal, in Singapore, who was sick. Smith showed him a photograph of Marshal and told him that Marshal would give him money to enter Singapore. Smith also gave him a plastic bag containing chocolates and sweets.

29 When he went to Changi Airport Terminal 2 as instructed by Smith, he did not see Marshal. He called Smith at telephone number 03335216217, and Smith told him to wait. While he was at the terminal, he opened his bag and the capsules spilled out, and he placed them in his gloves, socks, and the chocolate box where the police found them later. When the police questioned him about the capsules he swallowed one of them.

30 After he was brought to the hotel room, he called Smith to make arrangements to meet Marshal so that the officers could arrest Marshal. The officers showed him a digital photograph which he recognised to be Marshal from the photograph that he had seen previously, and Marshal was brought into the room.

31 In the fourth statement given on 17 February 2005, the first accused added that Smith had told him that he had intended to go to Indonesia to hand the capsules to Marshal, but as the first accused was going to Singapore, he could get Marshal to go to Singapore to collect the capsules as well as a book on herbs from him instead. Smith showed him two photographs of Marshal, one of him alone, and the other of him with Smith.

32 The first accused also elaborated that Smith had instructed him to go to Terminal 2. When he did not see Marshal there, he called Smith and Smith told him that Marshal had missed his flight and instructed him to check into the transit hotel. Smith also gave him Marshal's telephone number. He called Marshal, and Marshal told him that he had missed his flight, but he should be arriving in the evening.

33 The first accused added that after he was brought to the hotel room, he made three telephone calls to Smith and was told by Smith to wait for Marshal at the Coffee Bean café.

This is the case made out by the prosecution against him:

34 The Prosecution relied on the first accused's admissions that he knew he had the capsules in his possession; and that he had agreed with Smith to deliver the capsules to Marshal for a promised payment of US$2000.

35 The Prosecution relied on the presumption in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) that he knew that the capsules contained diamorphine and the fact that wilful ignorance is not a defence.

And this is his defence:

37 At the trial, a considerable amount of time was spent on many matters, for example, the bag from which the capsules were recovered from, and the first accused's travels after leaving Nigeria up to his arrival in Singapore. When all the evidence was in, and the disputes were aired, the material facts and the disputed issues emerged.

38 It was not disputed that the first accused knew that he had the capsules with him when he entered Singapore. He admitted that he was in contact with Smith and the second accused and that there was an arrangement for him to deliver the capsules to the second accused. His defence was that he did not know that the capsules contained diamorphine and that he believed Smith that the capsules were herbs intended for Marshal who was sick.

39 His counsel laid stress on the fact that he was an 18-year-old from a rural village from Nigeria who had wanted to further his football career. He came to know Smith in Pakistan and Smith offered to help him go to Dubai and when that failed, to go to Singapore, to play football. Throughout the investigations, the first accused had maintained that he thought the capsules contained herbs, and had even swallowed one capsule which contained a potentially lethal quantity of diamorphine.

40 Counsel also emphasised that although the first accused had about 20 minutes from the time he was told that the police were coming to interview him to the time they came, and he had the opportunity to dispose of the capsules, he did not do it, nor did he make any serious attempt at concealing them.

41 All this, it was submitted, was consistent only with the first accused's belief that the capsules were herbs, and there was no fear of detection or need to resort to concealment.

And this is Kan J's final evaluation on what he felt to be the facts of the case:

42 There was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out on his own.
43 On the other hand, the first accused did not have a consistent belief in the contents of the capsules. When he was first asked if the capsules were chocolate he affirmed that they were, and then said that they were herbs which tasted like chocolate, and then that they were African herbs for stomach problems, when by his own evidence Smith had not informed him of the origin of the herbs, their taste or use.
44 His position on the payment he was to receive for making the delivery was also unsatisfactory. When Sgt Tan interviewed him, Sgt Tan made a contemporaneous note of the promised US$2000. In his signed statement taken by ASP Goh, express reference was made to the US$2000. SSgt Yap also gave evidence that the sum of US$2000 was mentioned although SSgt Yap did not make a record of it in writing.
45 The first accused, however, denied in his defence that he had mentioned the figure and maintained that although he was promised a payment, no amount was mentioned. He had no plausible explanations for Sgt Tan's note and his own signed statement which made specific reference to US$2000. On the evidence before me, I accepted the Prosecution's assertion that the first accused was promised US$2000.
46 Why was the US$2000 an issue? It was because the large sum promised should have raised suspicion. The first accused's evidence was that Smith was not a rich man. He did not have enough money to buy an air ticket for himself to go from Dubai to Indonesia to visit his sick friend. There must be a reason for Smith to offer him the large sum of US$2000 to deliver the capsules of herbs when he was already funding his passages to Dubai and to Singapore. The first accused knew that Smith was a man who would break the law as Smith had arranged for false visas and endorsements to be entered into the first accused's passport to facilitate his travels. He must have realised that Smith was offering him much more than was reasonable for putting him through the minor inconvenience of meeting up with Marshal at the airport terminal and handing the capsules to him. He should have asked to be shown and be assured of the contents before agreeing to deliver them, and he could have used the ample opportunities he had when he was in possession of the capsules to check them himself, but he did nothing.
47 Counsel made much of the first accused's youth. The first accused was 18 years old at that time of arrest, but he was not a simple sheltered boy fresh out of his village. He had left school at the age of 14, and played football for a living in Nigeria and in Senegal. After returning home from Senegal, he was confident enough to go abroad again, and decided that he would not go back to Senegal, but would seek better prospects in Dubai instead. He was able to fend for himself when he was stranded in Pakistan and unable to travel on to Dubai. He was rich in life experiences for someone of 18 years.

48 I found that he had wilfully turned a blind eye on the contents of the capsules because he was tempted by the US$2000, which was a large sum to him. When Smith, who had befriended him and had appeared to help him get out of Pakistan, also offered him the US$2000, he did not want to ask any questions or check the capsules himself. Consequently, even if he may not have actual knowledge that he was carrying diamorphine, his ignorance did not exculpate him because it is well established that:

[I]gnorance is a defence only when there is no reason for suspicion and no right and opportunity of examination ...

- Yeo Choon Huat v PP [1998] 1 SLR 217 at [22] and his defence cannot stand. He was therefore found guilty and convicted on the charge he faced.

Btw, Smith was never apprehended or present at trial.

3 The person referred to as Smith was not apprehended. From the evidence, he was in Pakistan.

Note: I'm really sorry that this is a really long comment. But I guess if you had the time to read all this, then the facts of the case itself (since it isn't publicly available) should be able to clear up your doubts much better.

Kitana, I actually meant to imply that I still have those questioning doubts even after having read many times the full verdict posted at Gayle's blog comments last week. The full verdict still lacks the vital information I questioned in order to come to a conclusion, whether Tochi was duped, was he really wilfully ignorant or was he really lying to save himself.

"31 In the fourth statement given on 17 February 2005, the first accused added that Smith had told him that he had intended to go to Indonesia to hand the capsules to Marshal, but as the first accused was going to Singapore, he could get Marshal to go to Singapore to collect the capsules as well as a book on herbs from him instead. Smith showed him two photographs of Marshal, one of him alone, and the other of him with Smith."

The mentioning of the book of herbs strongly implies that Tochi could have been duped that the capsules were indeed harmless herbs meant for Marshal. But there is no mentioning of whether the book of herbs were found on Tochi in the verdict or that Smith did not pass it to him as he should have. Tochi's standard of english may not be on par with ours, it could have caused some misunderstandings even.

There are so many conflicts in the verdict, and the facts are insufficient for me at least or anyone else, to come to any strong conclusion of the case.

Having said the previous comment, I feel that the judge in a court must consult a panel of expert psychologists to come to any conclusion for cases with many questionable doubts, if they don't already do so, especially where lives are at stake. Having long experience in court or the law does not make one any expert with the psyche of a criminal, nor in psychology. Otherwise the court in Singapore will no longer in future have my vote of confidence.

KTM, based on what I have pointed out, do you have any suspicions that Tochi could have been duped by Smith?

WBG: I don't have access to the entire case file, but there is a possibility that like you said, he might have been duped. Might have. The case leaves these suggestions open. However, the fact that "Smith" was never apprehended and never showed up is very damning, because Smith couldn't have been cross-examined for the truth. And the court had to find an outcome based on what it already had. In Tochi's case, I think I've mentioned on the comments to my blog entry that the amount of heroin that he was carrying - 700 g - that convicted him. That and the fact that while the prosecutors were not able to prove from the facts that he knew conclusively that he was carrying heroin, the problem was that Tochi could not prove that he did not know that he was carrying heroin. He already admitted that he knew he was carrying something, and from what he had described he knew that he was being involved in a shady deal. And because the law functions as such where the legal burden is on Tochi to disprove on the balance of probabilities (quantitively, he has to raise a defence that will make his innocence/guilt 50%-50%), it was held that he was unable to do so (i.e. he still seemed more guilty than he did innocent to the court). So even though the facts that you raised are unclear, because of our current burden of proof there is no need for the court to prove or disprove them.

Kira: Thank you. =) But not really lah. Everything is what Parliament said, not what I said also. Haha.

KTM: Hello! I agree with you on your comment. Actually, the last review of the Misuse of Drugs Act was done in 1998, but I did not include it here because it only involved amending the Act so that it could deal with the new threat from synthetic drugs like Ecstacy and so on, and there was nothing more on presumptions. But I also do believe that as the drug culture and landscape changes, we will have to amend our laws accordingly, as is usually the case. =)

Kitana, yes I am very well aware that the death penalty as a deterrence(justice must be seen to have been made) was made political(since the PM once stated that Singapore cannot be used as a drug-trafficking hub). This was why I always commented from a political point of view for the earliest article written about the (mandatory)death penalty, "The Death Penalty: Questioning Ourselves" written by Speranza Nuova.

However my comments here were raised, on whether it is possible to argue for one's innocence even though one is administered the burden of prove in court. And on whether it is still possible to win such a case seen by some as a no-win scenario? So I stated my questions based on the judiciary point of view, rather than focusing on questioning whether or not the (mandatory)death penalty is indeed fair or unjest towards the accused in a court of law.

I asked the questions as a query as to whether every possible argument to prove Tochi's innocent has been exhausted. Therefore if Tochi could have been seen as being duped by smith, it could equate as proof that Tochi did not know he was carrying diamorphine in those 100 capsules. Therefore the need for any burden of proof is not further applicable and the case could have a different outcome. But alas, no one here seems to have the case file, and the verdict report is insufficient for any outside observer to make a clear judgement on the case.

So my point to you is that perhaps you should exhaust all your uncertainties on the judiciary aspects of the (mandatory)death penalty, the focus of which is the burden of proof, before focusing on venturing towards the political aspects of the (mandatory)death penalty.

wbg,

KTM, based on what I have pointed out, do you have any suspicions that Tochi could have been duped by Smith?

The KTM would refrain from speculating on the case because he believes there is insufficient information for us to even speculate on this count. What is true however is that in such a case, there is always a question on the reliability of the testimony of the accused persons.

The KTM is reasonably sure that the judge would have consider the possibility that Tochi had been duped by Smith. The facts available however seem to suggest that Tochi had reason to believe that the stuff he was carrying wasn't legal. Therefore, there is perhaps some indication that Tochi wasn't quite as clueless as the defence sought to portray. The KTM is willing to believe that the trial judge would have thought about all these circumstances before he came to a conclusion on the finding to make. As the KTM highlighted earlier, there's one MAJOR fact that people don't seem to realise: the trial judge gets to examine the accused in person.

After x years on the bench, judges do develop some sort of intuition on whether witnesses are reliable and whether the accused persons know what they are saying and whether they are truthful. That's the X-factor in judging that one doesn't find in the law textbooks. The KTM is willing to give Justice Kan the benefit of doubt, if that is what you are asking.

KTM,

The KTM would refrain from speculating on the case because he believes there is insufficient information for us to even speculate on this count.

Yes, this is one of my points I am stressing from my previous comment. That outside observers without knowing the full case should not make any certain judgement on it. They could speculate or discuss minor details of the case, but they should not make up their minds and deem Tochi innocent or guilty simply by reading the verdict report, or based on their intuition.

They should refrain from feeling too much for Tochi, nor to sway the readers of their blogs of their own judgment based on their intuition, a mistake many bloggers were guilty of, if they cannot decide for certain his guilt or innocence. However if they feel that the death penalty is unjustified, they should raise it as a separate issue, and not use the case as an emotional platform to review the death penalty based on moral issues or to question its deterrence effect.

The raising of the review of the death penalty based on how one feels, would raise much doubts on the person's train of logic. I would greatly doubt the words and credibility of such people.

"After x years on the bench, judges do develop some sort of intuition on whether witnesses are reliable and whether the accused persons know what they are saying and whether they are truthful. That's the X-factor in judging that one doesn't find in the law textbooks. The KTM is willing to give Justice Kan the benefit of doubt, if that is what you are asking."

However after x years doing crimes, some criminals also know how to lie and cheat with great effect, since these are skills developed by their criminal experience. The facts of the case file aside, you are willing to trust Justice Kan, which means you also share his same doubts that Tochi might not have known about the contents of the capsules, but went on to deem him guilty. The doubts present in Justice Kan's intuition meant that the facts were insufficient and unreliable in order to present those doubts, which means that the sentencing of Tochi was based merely on intuition, which is rarely reliable and logical. So you mean to say that you would trust your own judgements based on intuition, and trust the judgement of people who do so as well.

WBG:

I think you don't really understand how the reversal of the burden of proof works. Essentially it means there is no need for the judiciary to exhaust all their means; prosecution presents its case, accused attempts to rebut, and judges decide on what they have. Yes there are many unanswered questions, and the fact tt this Smith guy cannot testify in court leaves a lot of room.

Notably, I have covered both the legal presumptions as well as the mandatory death penalty, and both in great detail. If you've read my posts or my comments you will understand what I am trying to get at better. The judiciary has a role to play yes, but the law is still in the hands of the lawmakers.

And anyone, lawyer, law student, judge, ordinary citizen or otherwise, will know that when something is unclear or when justice is not seen to be clearly served, questions will definitely follow. This isn't about activism or bleeding-heart attitudes, this is about discerning what a justice system should be seen to be.

Good night.

"Having said the previous comment, I feel that the judge in a court must consult a panel of expert psychologists to come to any conclusion for cases with many questionable doubts, if they don't already do so, especially where lives are at stake. Having long experience in court or the law does not make one any expert with the psyche of a criminal, nor in psychology. Otherwise the court in Singapore will no longer in future have my vote of confidence."

This is the utterly most ridiculous statement/s I seen from you WBG. It has been strenuously argued everywhere that a proof beyond reasonable doubt for capital cases is a good thing. Whether other considerations should serve as a balance to this is a noteworthy question that is not within the ambit of our discussion. Judges can deal with doubt very well when the Law says it does not have to deal with them. To put the cart in front of the horse is one thing, WBG.

Another is that the proposed solution to the imaginary problem which does not exists smacks of a revolutionary approach to justice. If you think judges cannot handle the finding of fact, the passing of laws, why would you think psychologists can do better? Besides, psychologists are already consulted when it is relevant - towards intention for the potentially insane. Who are to assure the independence of psychologists? What are you talking about?

Kitana said,
"I think you don't really understand how the reversal of the burden of proof works."

I'm afraid that you have made another error in your presumption. I understand fully well what the reversal of the burden of proof means. It means if a person is found with evidence that incriminates him of a crime, he has to prove his innocence or he will be deemed guilty by the prosecutor.

Tochi was found with a large amount of diamorphine, 727.02g of it. Therefore the large amount meant he had to prove his innocence. I actually find no reason not to support the reversal of the burden of proof in such a case, because Tochi possessed a large amount of harmful drugs, much more than the amount of 15g. He had to prove he was not a drug-trafficker.

If someone one is found with 700g of TNT explosives which he claim to be clay plasticine for his niece, but lab reports later prove the clay to be real TNT explosives, I would want the person to explain himself to prove his innocence, and to prove that he is not involved in terrorism, especially if he was caught in a US airport just after the incident of 911. No logical person would deem such a person to be innocent until proven guilty, especially if his statements did not match and he is full of suspicion.

"Notably, I have covered both the legal presumptions as well as the mandatory death penalty, and both in great detail. If you've read my posts or my comments you will understand what I am trying to get at better. The judiciary has a role to play yes, but the law is still in the hands of the lawmakers."

However, for you who is a student studying law, I expect much more than meagre explanations. For one I fail to agree that you have covered what should be covered, and in as much detail as necessary. For another you made the fatal error in talking about a case which you don't have the full details, and presuming many facts. If you can't even bother to explain yourself in greater detail, I don't see how you can cope with practising real life law in a criminal court, where the paperwork runs by kilograms. The stress would be too much for you to handle. If you insist in doing so, you would only be doing a great disservice to your clients the public. Even I have no confidence in your judgement, which you often seem to apply without good reason. And not being able to handle simple spam shows great lack of emotional control. I don't even think you are qualified to write articles to explain why a law should be changed. But I'm sure the future demands of law would put you where you are most comfortable in.

"And anyone, lawyer, law student, judge, ordinary citizen or otherwise, will know that when something is unclear or when justice is not seen to be clearly served, questions will definitely follow. This isn't about activism or bleeding-heart attitudes, this is about discerning what a justice system should be seen to be."

The law is indeed drafted and reviewed by the hands of the lawmakers in politics, this is for good reason, it does not seek the approval of lawyers or others who may not be qualified in recognising the bigger picture, however strongly or qualified they may think. The same thing goes for journalists in regard to policy making.

Ben,

I said,
"I feel that the judge in a court must consult a panel of expert psychologists to come to any conclusion for cases with many questionable doubts, if they don't already do so, especially where lives are at stake. Having long experience in court or the law does not make one any expert with the psyche of a criminal, nor in psychology."

Do you know what criminal psychologists do? A judge cannot perform a lie-detecting test himself nor interpret the blood content of an accused in court.

"It has been strenuously argued everywhere that a proof beyond reasonable doubt for capital cases is a good thing. "

A blatant presumption.

"Besides, psychologists are already consulted when it is relevant - towards intention for the potentially insane. "

Hardly enough in Singapore.

As society progress, the law is no longer independent, law is increasingly relevent to politics. I am talking about a new policy which I find unnecessary to be explained to you. Perhaps you would hear of its existence if you could make it to the criminal courts in future. Therefore my reply to Kitana applies to you as well. And do ask for some Stilnox from the pharmacist, it can calm down your nerves and help you sleep.

YBG...

Because many people believe they are born gay,

anyhow, you said

"As society progress, the law is no longer independent, law is increasingly relevent to politics."

Whybegay, you considered a career in Satire? Law has always been part of the politics. Positivism 101. Law ia command back by sanctions. And th first part of your sentence, 'as society progress, the law is no longer independent' says nothing. Law is not independent - it has always roots in the political and the community notions of rights and wrongs - whether we agree with it or not.

"I am talking about a new policy which I find unnecessary to be explained to you. Perhaps you would hear of its existence if you could make it to the criminal courts in future."

Yay. If you are referring to CJ Chan Sek Keong and the new approach to the criminal justice system, please speak clearly. If its unnecessary, its unncessary to say its unnecessary. Its a bit the pointless you get it? Perhaps not.

"And do ask for some Stilnox from the pharmacist, it can calm down your nerves and help you sleep."

No problems in that faculty, sadly. I only sleep too well. For you, WhyBeGay, I suggest you sleep less and read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Cheers

I'm glad you helped me extrapolate on my points for greater clarity. You would make a good law secretary someday. It is also less stressful than being a lawyer.

Dearest Sweetest YBG

If you count this as legal work even for a legal secretary, I am proud of your innocence... I forgive your misguided nature.

Perhaps you don't have much experience with reality as others see it? Perhaps a crash course in Logic might help?

Besides, why don't you engage in discussion of the points? Finding disfavour and rejection difficult to take? Get used to honesty and yes, truth, and a brand new liberal world.

Discuss the points, apologize for your unrequired comments and stop your virulent comments and assumptions.

Besides, gays are getting married left, right and center in so many countries. Where marriage is not possible, civil unions are possible to give similar legal rights. Aais has not done the same, but who knows? Can you imagine the world after you have long gone and died?

Cheers,

I hate to do this but Gentlemen, I think we can all do more to contribute to the civility of the space here.

I apologize for being childish (while pointing fingers),

Anyhow,

YBG,

Your Point One)
You said "As society progress, the law is no longer independent, law is increasingly relevent to politics. I am talking about a new policy which I find unnecessary to be explained to you. Perhaps you would hear of its existence if you could make it to the criminal courts in future."

"Therefore my reply to Kitana applies to you as well. And do ask for some Stilnox from the pharmacist, it can calm down your nerves and help you sleep."

My Point)
The sentence is somewhat tautological, the second sentence is unnecessary. I will like to know what exactly you are trying to say here. Can you please elaborate? It is unclear. Perhaps you don't mean anything?

Point Two
Your reply to Kitana included "However, for you who is a student studying law, I expect much more than meagre explanations. For one I fail to agree that you have covered what should be covered, and in as much detail as necessary. For another you made the fatal error in talking about a case which you don't have the full details, and presuming many facts. If you can't even bother to explain yourself in greater detail, I don't see how you can cope with practising real life law in a criminal court, where the paperwork runs by kilograms. The stress would be too much for you to handle. If you insist in doing so, you would only be doing a great disservice to your clients the public. Even I have no confidence in your judgement, which you often seem to apply without good reason. "

My Point
Minus the references to Kitana, could you explain what are the details that are missing, and why are you so sure they are missing?

Your Point 2(a)
If you are talking about your other point, "But alas, no one here seems to have the case file, and the verdict report is insufficient for any outside observer to make a clear judgement on the case", surely the judge has access to the case file....

My point
Many academic papers are written base on the case report only. Are you asserting too that those academic paper are not good? I have written papers about people who died 300 years ago. Terrible are they not?

Your Point Three
Morover, you also asserted that,

"I feel that the judge in a court must consult a panel of expert psychologists to come to any conclusion for cases with many questionable doubts, if they don't already do so, especially where lives are at stake."

I said
My point was that if there are questionable doubts of facts, surely asking psychologists will not be useful and besides, who is to assure the pyschologists are independent. This is not the family court. Pyschologists should be consulted but for reasons of insanity etc - where mens rea could not be proven. The trouble is mens rea is not required to be proven in the law - and we are back to the question of presumptions. Besides isn't it contradictory with your earlier point? So a person needs to hear the whole proceedings, read all the case file, and consult a panel of expert pyschologists, exhaust all possibilities before hanging a person? Why no get rid of the death penalty? I am sure the deterrence effect will be rather low..

Your Point Four.
You said this to Kitana
"The law is indeed drafted and reviewed by the hands of the lawmakers in politics, this is for good reason, it does not seek the approval of lawyers or others who may not be qualified in recognising the bigger picture, however strongly or qualified they may think. The same thing goes for journalists in regard to policy making."

My Point
Go back and read what Kitana said. First you did not address the point. Her point was if there are perceived problems in the law, anyone can say there is a problem. You disagreed and you did not even understand in the first place. If you point is that we must submit to authority on such issues, I have to make a dirty comment which appears unpopular.

Point Five (which you said was what you are 'really' trying to say)
"Smith was deemed as dishonest to Tochi, did his lawyers try to prove that Tochi was being duped by Smith's lies? Was Tochi really wilfully ignorant or was he duped?"

My Point
Well, from a pragmatic perspective, the lawyers probably did try to prove this. If they did, the judge will probably have to deal with it. But even if they tried, it was impossible to prove. If it suceeds, every drug trafficker will say they are duped. And so its not proven. Why are you making a big deal of this?

Please try to reply sensibly if you going to, k?

Give me a hug?