Whenever I’m cramming for a test the night before (which I do very often, I should add), I have this routine I follow to prevent myself from spontaneously combusting at the intensity of the sudden influx of information rushing at me from the pages. I can never study for long periods of time, so what I do is I’d read for half an hour or so before taking a break and plugging on my (weather-beaten but trusty as ever) mp3. I’d then promise myself I’ll allow two songs tops to play before heading back to the table. (I can’t study with music on)
Unfortunately, what happens every time is that I end up squeezing 3 or 5 more songs than intended, which means time management goes out the window. So the lesson here is…I need crappy songs for my playlist. Yep. That way, I’ll be hitting the books in no time.
—————
Last Monday, we witnessed whipping being carried out on a convict for the first time. After a lecture on sentencing, the lecturer put on a video to show how it’s actually done. I don’t exactly know what the man was serving time for or what his crime was, but it warranted 20x whipping. The audio wasn’t working which, after the video ended, I think was a blessing. The camera basically showed us the man being strapped up, with his whole body covered except for his bare bottom. After a few seconds intro, the camera zoomed in on his butt and the whipping began.
Throughout the whole procedure, some of the girls in class had to look away. You could see his meat flying as the blows carried on, and even without the audio, you could tell he was in absolute pain, with his whole body quivering violently after every blow. By the end of the video, the man’s bottom was reduced to nothing but fleshy pulp. It didn’t look much like a bottom anymore.
The lecturer who used to be a Magistrate proposed that whipping be abolished because of its inhumanity - even whipping under the Shariah wasn’t as cruelly administered. He also thought it best to show judges how it’s actually done to make them think twice about sentencing convicts to whipping.
I don’t know, I’m a little torn about the whole thing.
As much as I believe every person’s right should be considered equally, saint or sinner alike, I have a problem with being too sympathetic towards criminals, especially those convicted of serious offences. I got into a little debate with a lecturer last semester because he was so intent on protecting the rights of accused persons to the point where I thought he’d forgotten about the rights of the public to safety. That debate got a little heated, so I retreated because who am I with my non-existent experience?
I know the reason why my Crim. Procedure lecturers are so bent on protecting accused persons is because of the cases of police torture and abuse we have in this country, or because of how certain charged offenders can be detained up to 8 years without a hearing, or because of how detainees aren’t aware that they have a right to a lawyer and to communicate their arrest to their family/friend (so that somebody knows where they are) and how certain DPPs manipulate this fact to their unfair advantage. I hear cases of how people can be detained, tortured in lock-up and have their bodies dumped without family members even knowing their whereabouts. So I get it, I get why we should have more protection for offenders.
But at the same time, I’ve been talking to some of the policemen who are doing their law degrees with us, and I can also see things from their point of view. They are underpaid, overworked and understaffed. The public expects security, the human rights groups demand charged persons be treated with utmost civility and when there’s so much pressure coming at them from both sides, they’re bound to crack. So where do we draw the line between the right of the individual against the right of the public? How do we strike a balance?
After the video finished, people filing out around me were shaking their heads at the graphic image probably still ringing in their heads. On the other hand, I packed my books with complete indifference, and thought “for 2 semesters we’ve always been so focused on the accused person, who’s looking out for the victims?” No really, I want to know.
Why are we so concerned about these people who’ve probably robbed, raped, and battered another? What about those who deserve justice themselves, aren’t they entitled to feel some kind of retribution? I’m not encouraging revenge, but how about you come home to find your daughter raped, your mother beaten and broken and all your belongings gone, and you tell me you can look at the person responsible and feel pity at his whipping fate. Skins heal; emotional scars stay.
This is why I propose we show the video not to judges, but to the public at large. Perhaps it can serve as some kind of deterrence.
…I’m not going to make a very good defence lawyer if I practice criminal law, am I?
But these are my initial thoughts. We’ll see where they go.
Enough said here.
