The bill is due to be debated in Parliament on Monday, after which it will be considered by the Council and allow the Home Secretary to take a final decision on the release of offenders. Although such processes are not new to Singapore’s legal system, activists have raised concerns.
Singapore seeks to detain ‘dangerous criminals’ beyond prison terms
Singapore seeks to detain ‘dangerous criminals’ beyond prison terms
Anti-death penalty activist Rocky Howe said the proposed bill’s annual review of offenders would be a “serious deprivation of liberty and curtailment of rights”.
“The administration of the vetting process and decisions about when to release people are opaque and lack public oversight. This undermines due process and increases the risk of abuse,” Howe said in a statement released by the Internal Security Act. I said this while making a comparison.
Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA) gives the Home Secretary the power to detain individuals without trial for two years, renewable at his discretion. Each order must be reviewed by an advisory committee headed by a Supreme Court justice and two citizens jointly appointed by the president and the chief justice.
In recent years, colonial-era laws have been applied against armed suspects. It is also one of Singapore’s most controversial laws, with critics claiming its expansive powers could be invoked without oversight.
The government defended the ISA, saying it was a last resort and necessary to maintain public order and safety.
Under the SEPP, only those who commit serious violent crimes, such as culpable murder or attempted murder, or serious sexual crimes, such as rape or sexual penetration of a minor, can be sentenced.
If a court determines that a felon is suitable for a SEPP case, the person must serve a minimum period of time in prison before being evaluated by a variety of experts, including psychiatrists, psychologists, and a detention review board. There must be.
The case is then reviewed by the Home Secretary, who can decide whether to release or detain the offender and review the case annually.
Singapore’s Home Minister K. Shanmugam stressed that the law would only apply to a small number of dangerous criminals who have committed very serious crimes to prevent them from causing further harm to society, according to government newspaper The Straits.・The Times reported.
He also sought to address concerns that the law could blur the line between the government and the courts.
“When a person is first convicted, the court can choose whether to impose a regular sentence or a SEPP sentence. So it is the complete discretion of the court,” he was quoted by local media .
A joint press release from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice said the bill aims to “better protect the public from dangerous criminals”, including serial sex offenders who preyed on children and rebellious criminals who have re-offended after being released. He said he was giving the example of a criminal. From prison.
In one example, a criminal who sexually abused eight children with learning disabilities or physical disabilities after offering to tutor them in 2022 was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
“Our current sentencing options are inadequate to deal with such egregious crimes. For crimes that do not result in life imprisonment, all of the currently available sentencing options, regardless of the threat to others, , which mandates automatic release after a certain point in time,” the statement said.
According to both ministries, there are currently 200 to 300 serious violent and sexual crimes committed each year.
The fact that the power to extend detention rests with the Minister rather than the courts… violates the concept of open justice.
“There are clearly concerns about how the government determines whether a criminal no longer poses a threat to the public,” said Mark Yeo, a director at law firm Fortress Law.
“Such a law would provide a means to bring the issue to court, apart from judicial review, as a check and balance on the exercise of executive power, and would require an independent commission to decide whether an offender should be released. We should provide the means to engage.”
Meanwhile, Mr Howe said giving ministers the power to decide whether offenders are deemed ready to reintegrate into society violates the “concept of open justice”.
“Incarceration as a form of criminal punishment is already a serious deprivation of liberty and a restriction of individual rights,” he said. “It is also contrary to the concept of open justice that the power to extend detention rests with the minister rather than the court.”
Singapore triples prison terms for drug possession, strengthens drug control laws
Singapore triples prison terms for drug possession, strengthens drug control laws
Jino Hardyal Singh, managing director of Abbotts Chambers LLC, suggested that more clarity is needed about how decisions are made.
“I understand that the decision will be made after the minister has been advised by an expert panel, including psychiatrists and psychologists, but the final decision rests with the minister,” he said. “Perhaps it would be better for the final decision to be made by an expert rather than the minister.”
Mr. Singh also suggested including the perpetrator’s lawyer in the deliberation process.
‘Be prepared to debate’: Shanmugam on the drug war and alternative perspectives
‘Be prepared to debate’: Shanmugam on the drug war and alternative perspectives
Some expressed concerns about how offenders would be assessed.
“Another concern is that when offenders are essentially evaluated in an institutional setting, how do we actually assess their chances of reintegration into society?” said Siraj Shaikh Aziz, director of Sylvester Legal LLC. How should we evaluate it?”
“Will his behavior in such circumstances be a useful indicator of how he will behave once he is released? There are many ways in which an offender may be given time while in custody with the hope of early release. , there is a motive for any action.”
Mr Shanmugam pointed out in Parliament in 2022 that the new sentencing system has some similarities to the UK’s Intended Imprisonment (IPP) programme, which was abolished in 2012.
“I have to say that the UK has tried this approach with very mixed results, but I think we will succeed,” he claimed at the time.
In 2020, a former UK Supreme Court judge described IPPs as “the biggest stain on our criminal justice system”.
Stephanie Yuen Teo, co-managing partner of TSMP Law Corporation, said the IPP’s ruling is broader in scope than the SEPP and could apply to more than 90 crimes.
“Detention could be indefinite. IPP was imposed in cases involving less serious crimes with relatively short minimum sentences. British prisons were also oversized and “We lacked the resources to do so,” she said, noting that Singapore’s SEPP had a narrow scope, covering only 16 violent and sexual offences.
He also pointed out that the minister’s power to decide when offenders should be released is “not new”.
“For example, in the case of a life sentence, it is the minister who decides whether and when the offender should be released on remission,” she said. “Other countries have similar systems in which non-judicial bodies, such as parole boards, decide on the release of offenders.”