SINGAPORE — A father of seven who sexually abused four daughters, raping three of them, and ill-treated a son was sentenced to 33 years, two months jail and 24 strokes of the cane on Friday (18 March).
This includes a seven-month jail term in lieu of 36 strokes of the cane, which cannot be imposed on the man as 24 strokes is the statutory maximum.
Punishments fit social norms, and balanced against social morals, which evolve. Seems weird, to camlne, from west standards. But we punish in some ways that others seem unfit.
For those who feel 24 strokes with a cane is rather light:
The offender shall receive no more than 24 strokes of the cane on any one occasion, irrespective of the total number of offences committed. In other words, a man cannot be sentenced to more than 24 strokes of the cane in a single trial, but he may receive more than 24 strokes if the sentences are given out in separate trials. However, in the first case where a prisoner was received more than 24 strokes in a single trial, armed robber Qwek Kee Chong (who served ten years in prison) was given 48 strokes of the cane on 8 April 1988 and later hospitalised for his grievous injuries from the caning; he was later granted compensation for this error.
The caning officer positions himself beside the trestle. The Director of Prisons explained in a 1974 press conference, “Correct positioning is critically important. If he is too near the prisoner, the tip of the cane will fall beyond the buttocks and the force of the stroke will cause the unsupported tip to dip and bend the cane and thus reduce the effect of the stroke. If he is too far, the stroke will only cover part of the buttocks.” Strokes are delivered at intervals of about 30 seconds. The caning officer is required to exert as much strength as he can muster for each stroke.
Oh shut up. Maybe anybody would care to hear this if he had done something other than repeatedly rape his daughters, but…He should be caned and then shot shortly after.
Torture is fine if they’re disgusting enough, that makes sense.
Personally I think all executions should be carried out humanely. You don’t need to beat them, they don’t need to fall down any stairs.
You have a cancer on society, and you excise it with speed and dignity.
Or you say the state has no right to execute anyone for anything, pick a moral stance and stick to it.
Otherwise you’re just a sadist looking for an excuse. Something that will let you pretend you just don’t want cause pain yourself, because that would make you the baddie, and that can’t possibly be right.
I’m fine with being asked to do it. I’m not one of those people who doesn’t butcher animals for meat himself, I’ve no real interest in causing pain, but that fucker deserves it.
Fuck the idea that any crime justifies the state enacting corporal punishment. If they can justify that it’s an acceptable punishment for anything they can justify it’s an acceptable punishment for anything
This is a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy. Using the same argument, you could claim that prison shouldn’t be a thing because the state could abuse this power and imprison people for anything.
They should fly in the best caner from anywhere in he world to do this guy. Put it on ppv and give the money to the girls for all the therapy they are gonna need.
Add comment