Yes, the lash is horrific, but so is letting killers hide from justice
Surely no civilised person could condone the barbaric sentence meted out to ye Ming yuen for drug offences in Singapore. The former public schoolboy was given 20 years after being found guilty of selling a small amount of illegal drugs to his friends; an amount that probably would have got him 12 months in a British jail; an amount that suggests a young man had taken a wrong turn in life, but that his life was redeemable.
In Singapore, they take a different view.
yuen, 31, has been in the brutal Changi prison since February 2018 after being arrested for ‘repeat drug trafficking’ in the summer of 2016.
This week he was taken from his cell, tied to a medieval contraption and given 24 lashes with a rattan cane as part of his punishment.
There is no doubt he is a criminal and a bit of an idiot — Singapore’s draconian and brutal drug laws are no secret — but thank goodness nothing so barbarous happens in the justice system here.
Our problem is that we have gone too far the other way.
This week, Hashem Abedi, convicted of helping his older brother build the suicide bomb that devastated the Manchester Arena in 2017, was sentenced at the Old Bailey for his part in the murder of 22 men, women and children.
He was jailed for a minimum of 55 years — but refused to come to court to hear his sentence and to face the tearful relatives of those he murdered. Abedi’s sentencing trial was their single opportunity to look him in the eye as they read out their victim impact statements. But the cowardly brute denied them even this small comfort.
The judge told the families of the victims that he was powerless to force Abedi, now 23, to leave his cell at the court to hear their testimony.
But why was the judge powerless? How can a terrorist with the blood of 22 innocents on his hands and found guilty by a jury now dictate what he will and will not do?
One wonders why the wretch wasn’t forcibly dragged from his cell and into the dock and made to face the families he had so terribly bereaved. Not so long ago, that is exactly what would have happened.
AFTer all, this is no petty criminal. Abedi helped plan one of the deadliest terrorist attacks on British soil, yet he was allowed to skulk in his cell like a sulky teenager rather than face the victims’ families.
Amid the grief they have to live with for ever, it must be hard for them to understand why his human rights and mental health are deemed more important than theirs. His absence from court is not the kind of mannered social nicety (‘No, you just stay in there, son, if that is what you feel like doing’) that would be tolerated in
Singapore. Or in most countries, come to think of it.
yet prisoners in custody or on remand refusing to attend their own hearings is an increasing problem in British courts. In December, a serial rapist refused to attend his own trial, claiming that he was ‘sleep-deprived’.
This means that many victims who have long planned for their moment in court in front of the perpetrator of the crime are denied the closure they seek.
Over the years, there have been misgivings about victim impact statements — I’ve had a few myself. They are supposed to bring comfort to victims and bereaved families. But what comfort does anyone gain from this farrago if the killer refuses to listen?
Victim impact statements are an idea copied from the u.S. and were introduced into our legal system by Harriet Harman when she was minister for constitutional affairs.
The premise is laudable. The statements are read out after the verdicts but before the sentencing, allowing the victim or their loved ones a say in court, making them feel included in the legal process.
Their words will not necessarily influence the tariff or sentence set by the judge, but it is important for many to feel that their grief and heartbreak have at least been officially noted; that their voice has been heard.
It is a courtesy rather than a new layer of emotional justice. But when it goes wrong — as it did this week — does it really help a family already in shreds?
yet we must draw the line at indulging murderers and rapists who are too cowardly to face their fate.
I’m not saying get out the rattan canes, but a little rigour wouldn’t go amiss.