Judge, Jury, and Executioner

As I grow older, there are fewer and fewer things that I am sure of.

One thing I am still sure of is, I would not want to be a Judge.

Another thing I am sure of is, for fairness and impartiality, victims of crimes should not be meting out punishment for the crime.

But even as I become more circumspect and less judgemental, I see social media has... "empowered" others.

And has made judgments EASY for many others.


I often cringe when I read in the papers of the judgements and comments of judges in criminal cases. I am sure they are required to pass judgement and to stand in judgement of criminals, and to affirm the moral rectitude of society as they intone their judgement from their statutorily prescribed (?) moral high ground.

I just associate "rectitude" with rectum (and so "moral rectitude" with being "anal"), and giggle immaturely.

(It helps, or doesn't help, that I know some anally self-righteous persons... ok, just one. Um... maybe two.)

The point is, as I grow older, I find myself being... less judgemental. More mellow. More compassionate. More willing to consider mercy instead of just justice.

But I can see why people find it EASY to pass judgement.

The thing with social media and the internet is that is gives you knowledge.

And as anyone with a decent amount of literacy knows, "Knowledge is Power".

And when you KNOW, you are moved to ACT. You are EMPOWERED to act.

Nay! You have a RESPONSIBILITY to act.

Because, as any Spiderman fan would know, "with great power, comes great responsibility". And isn't fighting injustice the ultimate response/responsibility?

Also, isn't this the prayer of serenity?

"Grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And Wisdom to know the difference."

Well, knowing there is injustice, and with social media so easily available, aren't we empowered to ACT to pursue JUSTICE, and if we do not are we NOT COURAGEOUSLY acting to right wrongs and INJUSTICE?

And look how EFFECTIVE this social pressure via social media has been! Companies have cut ties with NUS. The NUSSU first defended, and then caved into social media pressure and will have committee and meetings to discuss this. And the perpetrator has had to resign from his job!

Company cuts off ties with NUS, students express 'deep concern' as fallout from peeping tom incident widens

NUS students’ union condemns sexual harassment, urges students not to harass peeping tom

Justice “needs to consider both the victim and the perpetrator, and needs to be proportionate”, the executive committee of NUS Students' Union said.

NUS sets up committee to review discipline, support frameworks after peeping tom victim’s posts go viral

(Question: Did NUS act because there was injustice, or because the issue became viral? Did they act out of principle, or out of social pressure and fear?)

NUS voyeur leaves Great Eastern, after firm suspends him for ‘misconduct’

But you know the shit has hit the fan when a politician is moved to comment and take a position on this "social media injustice"!

Peeping tom case: Penalties by NUS ‘manifestly inadequate’, Ong Ye Kung says

And then the police had to defend their decision:

NUS peeping tom given conditional warning as he was assessed to have ‘high likelihood of rehabilitation’: Police

National University of Singapore (NUS) undergraduate Nicholas Lim, who filmed a female student while she was taking a shower last year, was given a 12-month conditional warning as he was assessed to have a “high likelihood of rehabilitation and was remorseful”, said the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in a statement on Tuesday (April 23).
The police also refuted allegations that Mr Lim was not prosecuted because he had “influential parents”, pointing out that Mr Lim’s father is a driver in the public transport sector and his mother is a housewife.
There were additional factors relating to Mr Lim’s conduct which were relevant, such as the absence of other obscene materials in any of his devices, added the police.
“A prosecution, with a possible jail sentence, will likely ruin his entire future, with a permanent criminal record,” said the statement.
Taking into account these factors, Mr Lim was given a conditional warning — which means that if he commits any other criminal offence within 12 months, he will be liable to be prosecuted for both this current offence and the subsequent offence. He will then likely face a jail sentence, said the police.
“Our criminal justice system seeks to temper punishment and deterrence with giving offenders a second chance to reform, based on assessment of the relevant factors,” said the SPF.

So, the perpetrator has been suspended from NUS, and has had to resigned from his temporary job. Has Justice been served?

Honestly, I do not know. 

Certainly he is paying for his crime, maybe not in our Criminal Justice System, but in the court of public opinion and social media.

Is his suffering and distress equal to the distress and trauma he caused the victim? 

I do not know. How does one equate distress and trauma?

Maybe you might have heard this before: 

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave us all blind and toothless."

I think it was Gandhi who said that. 

I do not know if Justice was best served with the victim raising her dissatisfaction with the denouement of this traumatic incident.

I will not trivialise her suffering, anguish, and distress. Certainly she did not ask to be traumatised and victimised. And certainly, no one can tell her that her pursuit of justice for herself is unjust or excessive, or self-indulgent. She has been wronged and she has every right to seek retribution. 

Or at the very least justice.

However one defines it. 

I do not KNOW what is JUSTICE, and therefore I am in no position to claim one way or another, what is or is not JUSTICE for her. 

She is in the best position to decide what is justice for her. She know the depth to which she was wronged, and she can best assess if she is satisfied by the punishment accorded to the perpetrator.

I am just somewhat certain that she will find that there is no justice and no satisfaction. What he has taken from her, cannot be returned. Nothing that is done to him, will return her to her innocence and the way she was before she was violated. 

(Just watch any damn movie with vengeance as a theme, and if I still need to harp on this observation (truth?), you REALLY need to watch more movies. Try "Unforgiven".)

There is no reparation that can "repair" what was done to her. Maybe, just maybe, she might find closure.

But... that is for her to discover for herself.

Perhaps the Prayer for Serenity is not complete. Perhaps the Wisdom we should ask for is not the Wisdom to discern the difference between what we can change and what we cannot, but the Wisdom or Humility to understand and accept that perhaps it is NOT for us to change things just because we can.

The power to change things does not automatically require that power to be used. It is great to have and use power. It is greater to have power and choose to use or not use that power judiciously and wisely, and sparingly.

This of course requires trust and humility. Trust in institutions such as the police. It is telling that one of the immediate (knee-jerk?) suspicion was that the perpetrator was from an influential family. The police has clarified that he is not.

It requires humility to subject oneself to the decision of others, that you accept that these "authorities" can make the decision impartially, objectively, and as fairly as they can.

Because it is a principle that judges should be impartial. Victims can always appeal and petition for more justice, but ultimately victims should not become judge, jury and executioner. Because how can one be impartial when one is the victim or the one wronged? That is just asking too much.

No. I'm not saying that she has taken on or tried to take on the role of judge-jury-and-executioner. No, she has not done that.

But because she took to social media, she turned social media to her side (and it is a sympathetic side), and the Beast that is Social Media then had a life of its own. And an Agenda of its own.

Remember Benjamin Lim?

What if, because of the harassment, and the distress and shame he has brought to his family, the perpetrator killed himself?

Would justice have been served then?

What if, because of the pressure from the Beast that is Social Media, and savvy Politicians harnessing the populism of social media, the police re-opened the case and charge the perpetrator, and he was sentenced, and had a criminal record, and could not graduate or get a decent job, and he could not provide for his parents and they fell ill and the perpetrator then turned to crime to try to pay their medical bills, and... too melodramatic?

Ok, say something else bad happened to him and his family because of this. Say his options and opportunities in the future were irrevocably reduced or limited because of his heinous act.

Would Justice be served then?

I can spin melodramatic soap opera scenarios all day long and it would be stupid. So here's the question for you instead.

What do you think would be JUSTICE in this case?

It is easy to feel for the victim. 

I have a daughter. If she were the victim, there would be no punishment too cruel for the perpetrator. No justice too swift. No punishment too severe. The Death Penalty sounds appropriate. If he killed himself, well, so much the better. Saves the State the cost and trouble of a hanging.

Which is why parents of victims make terrible judges too.

Mr Brown has weighed in on this issue as well. He has a daughter, so I can imagine what colours his views.

The point is, it is easy to find and stand on the moral high ground. It is easy, no, NATURAL to condemn, to vilify, to denounce.

And easy to cave in to the overwhelming moral righteousness and righteous indignation in the support of the blameless victim against the vile and monstrous perpetrator. 

As a politician has done. As NUS President has done. 

Like I said. 

Easy.

And maybe even politically necessary. Not just expedient.

I wrote at the start of this, that there are few things I am sure of. I'm sure I do not ever want to be a judge (not that I am qualified. But that hasn't stopped Mr Brown and almost everyone on social media). 

I am sure that victims should not be judge, jury and executioner. Or their parents. Or anyone who is going to make judgements based on emotion and personal perspective ("You don't have a daughter, you just shaddup!" was one comment I read).

A third thing I am sure of is that when everyone is on the bandwagon, then I have to be very sure I know where the wagon is going and why everyone is on it, and whether I am sure that being on that wagon is part of the solution, or part of the problem.

And when social media is almost unanimously headed in one direction, that is when it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL that you check your instincts, check the facts, and check your emotions, check your assumptions, and check your moral indignation.

Knowledge is Power.

Power tends to Corrupt.

Social Media empowers you.

Have you been corrupted?

I leave you with this:

The above meme from Doctor Who serves as a good checklist:

Are you doing what you're doing because you want to beat someone?

Are you doing what you're doing because you hate someone?

Or because you want to blame someone?

Is it fun or easy?

Is it working oh so well?

Is what you are doing RIGHT and DECENT? (Here's a clue: if it is easy, it's probably NOT right.)

And finally, is what you are doing kind? (Here's another clue: vengeance is not kind. Retribution is not kind. Judgement is never kind.)

On a related note, there is that little scandal in Hong Kong that has also "gone viral":

Jacqueline Wong’s TVB Boss Says The Actress Is “Emotionally Unstable” And Has Been Crying Non-stop