Man arrested for killing 66-year-old woman and driving without licence after ramming into Geylang pasar malam

[Mechafanboy]

did you read the whole article?

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim had said in Parliament on Jan 7 that the amendments do not mean the Government is signalling a more lenient stance towards repeat offenders.

Rather, the changes were made to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality.

Prosecutors will also be given more flexibility to proceed on a “hurt” charge even when “grievous hurt” is caused, he said.

This is to enable the prosecution to take into account other circumstances that could have been involved. They include the nature of the victim’s injury and whether other road users were partly responsible for the accident.

The refreshed Act will also adjust how motorists’ track records affect their classification as repeat offenders for dangerous or careless driving offences.

Under the new Act, motorists will be classified as repeat offenders only if they have at least two prior speeding convictions in excess of 40kmh of the road or vehicle’s speed limit.

At least two of the speeding convictions will also need to have occurred within five years of the dangerous or careless driving offence they are currently facing.

Motorists with previous convictions for dangerous or careless driving, or found to have conducted illegal speed trials, will continue to be classified as repeat offenders if found to have committed another similar offence.

Basically lighter sentences for people with no prior record. Quite an F-up logic. How is this a deterrence?

 

[arm4da]

Yes, and?

What I'm saying is that it is being more lenient on them, IMO. Especially when deaths are involved. They could have caveats to the law without lowering the minimum. Just like there are exceptions (as culpable homicide instead) to murder without having to reduce the DP for murder itself.

Road Traffic Act 1961

Reckless or dangerous driving
64.—(2) A person (X) commits an offence if —
(a) X contravenes subsection (1); and
(b) death is caused to another person by the driving of the motor vehicle by X.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be punished on conviction —
(a) with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years;
(b) if the person is a repeat offender — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 15 years;
(c) if the person is a serious offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than 2 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) if the person is a serious repeat offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 4 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b).

if they lower (6)(b) from 2 to 1 years, how is that being more lenient? they can still sentence the offender to anywhere from 1 to 15 years.

 

[arm4da]

Basically lighter sentences for people with no prior record. Quite an F-up logic. How is this a deterrence?

you remove the minimum, doesn't mean the offender will be getting off scot free

they don't have to give any minimum, but they can also still give anywhere up to the maximum

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/act/rta1961?ProvIds=P14-#pr64-

 

[uselessbum]

Road Traffic Act 1961

Reckless or dangerous driving
64.—(2) A person (X) commits an offence if —
(a) X contravenes subsection (1); and
(b) death is caused to another person by the driving of the motor vehicle by X.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be punished on conviction —
(a) with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years;
(b) if the person is a repeat offender — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 15 years;
(c) if the person is a serious offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than 2 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) if the person is a serious repeat offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 4 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b).

if they lower (6)(b) from 2 to 1 years, how is that being more lenient? they can still sentence the offender to anywhere from 1 to 15 years.

Literally the minimum from 2 to 1 for REPEAT offenders involving deaths. Just as they could be sentenced up to 15, they could also be sentenced to as little as 1. And given current sentencing trends, I doubt we would ever see anything more than 5, let alone 10 or more.

 

[Mechafanboy]

Road Traffic Act 1961

Reckless or dangerous driving
64.—(2) A person (X) commits an offence if —
(a) X contravenes subsection (1); and
(b) death is caused to another person by the driving of the motor vehicle by X.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be punished on conviction —
(a) with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years;
(b) if the person is a repeat offender — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 15 years;
(c) if the person is a serious offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than 2 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) if the person is a serious repeat offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 4 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b).

if they lower (6)(b) from 2 to 1 years, how is that being more lenient? they can still sentence the offender to anywhere from 1 to 15 years.

Because people are rarely given serious penalties for vehicular homicide. 2 years jail? Perhaps even a couple of months? I regularly think back to punggol case where a school boy was killed by a driver attempting to beat the red light, and the driver got a 2 year sentence. Beyond F-up.

 

[86technie]

pls give the driver death penalty

This, make the person stand there and get ram.
Eye for an eye.

 

[arm4da]

Literally the minimum from 2 to 1 for REPEAT offenders involving deaths. Just as they could be sentenced up to 15, they could also be sentenced to as little as 1. And given current sentencing trends, I doubt we would ever see anything more than 5, let alone 10 or more.

which is literally the point of the amendment. to give the prosecution more flexibility when it comes to sentencing, depending on the circumstances of the case?

 

[Nevereatrice]

see garment frivolously allowing car easily available for reach

 

[week3nd]

40yo still no driving license. what a loser

if license kena kantong then shouldn't drive since this loser can't even drive properly

Maybe lousy driver that's why kena kantong...

 

[arm4da]

Because people are rarely given serious penalties for vehicular homicide. 2 years jail? Perhaps even a couple of months? I regularly think back to punggol case where a school boy was killed by a driver attempting to beat the red light, and the driver got a 2 year sentence. Beyond F-up.

yeah. but lowering the minimum does not necessarily mean the same case would be sentenced the lower minimum?

 

[uselessbum]

which is literally the point of the amendment. to give the prosecution more flexibility when it comes to sentencing, depending on the circumstances of the case?

And my point is that this is being more lenient in general. And which brings me back to my previous point about having caveats to the law to allow for flexibility without having to lower the minimum. In fact, the prosecution already had the discretion to bring about a lesser charge even if there had been no change to the minimum.

 

[Mechafanboy]

yeah. but lowering the minimum does not necessarily mean the same case would be sentenced the lower minimum?

U see flexibility , I see (unnecessary) leniency.

The NUS imposter that killed a pillion, got away with just 5 years 8 months jail, even though his actions were deliberate. Our traffic laws sux, period. Vehicular homicides are a form of manslaughter, yet the penalty is so freaking light...

 

[week3nd]

How the **** did the driver managed to rent the GetGo car in the first place? No licence means no insurance... claiming against him will be complicated.

- Someone else rented and let him drive
- He used someone else's account
- He used fake license to apply
- He stole an unlocked car (probably not)

 

[yesman2978]

This one need to punish gao gao. Max penalty. Our traffic laws need a major update. Too soft on errant drivers, especially ones that kill...

The entire legal system needs an overhaul, the people in charged, especially

It is not for the lack of laws.

No one said that laws involving cars must die die be restricted to traffic laws.

A death is a death. Whether the killer use a gun, a chopper, a parang, poisons, a pencil, or even a toothpick to kill the victim, it shouldn't matter. All charge for murder.

So why are deaths caused by cars treated differently?

Should audit all the people in the legal system for double standards, and charge all those guilty of double standards as accomplices and double their sentences

 

[SuperClubby]

Hang him by the balls


But then again, the sentence issued confirm ish

 

[deathan9el]

tsk
haizz ..

no rhyme no reason
tio langgah at a supposedly safe spot :/

 

[106gunner]

Wow drove without licence?!

Why never name the suspect?

6 month jail term is too lenient for someone driving with no licence resulting to killing someone

 

[Chalkycliffs]

Looks like the unlicensed driver chiong out from the carpark gantry barrier, didn't make the left turn (it is a one way street) and just went straight into the stalls set up for the pasar malam.

 

[yesman2978]

Road Traffic Act 1961

Reckless or dangerous driving
64.—(2) A person (X) commits an offence if —
(a) X contravenes subsection (1); and
(b) death is caused to another person by the driving of the motor vehicle by X.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be punished on conviction —
(a) with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years;
(b) if the person is a repeat offender — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 15 years;
(c) if the person is a serious offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than 2 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) if the person is a serious repeat offender in relation to the driving — with imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years and not more than 4 years, in addition to any punishment under paragraph (a) or (b).

if they lower (6)(b) from 2 to 1 years, how is that being more lenient? they can still sentence the offender to anywhere from 1 to 15 years.

Yes they can

But have they?

Please give links to any report of anyone who actually got the full 15 years

 

[Chalkycliffs]

tsk
haizz ..

no rhyme no reason
tio langgah at a supposedly safe spot :/

I think the stall set up is a bit dangerous, it was directly opposite a carpark entry/exit barrier.

See my post.

Any vehicle exiting the carpark will be directly facing the stalls.