Rehabilitative sentences not necessarily ‘lighter’: Chief Justice
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivers his keynote address during the opening of the Sentencing Conference 2017-Review, Rehabilitation, Reintegration, at the Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct 26). Photo: Nuria Ling/TODAY
SINGAPORE – Unlike the 1950s where rising crime rates, secret societies and gangsters had to be countered with deterrent sentences, the improving crime situation since the 1980s paved the way for more rehabilitative sentences.
But the goal should not be pursued “at all costs”, and sentences that emphasise rehabilitation are not necessarily “lighter”, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon at the Sentencing Conference organised by the State Courts and Singapore Academy of Law on Thursday (Oct 26).
“An emphasis on rehabilitation is often seen as a prelude to the imposition of a less onerous sentence. But this is not necessarily the case,” said CJ Menon to more than 300 judges, prosecutors, lawyers and others in the criminal justice system.
In an appeal heard in 2008, for instance, a man convicted of attempted culpable homicide, who had pushed his ex-girlfriend onto the path of an oncoming train, had his sentenced upped from one to three years’ jail. Although he was depressed at the time, the Court of Appeal held that while rehabilitation was a relevant consideration, there was no suggestion this could not be accomplished in prison.
The court can achieve multiple objectives – such as rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation or prevention – with certain sentencing options, added CJ Menon in his keynote address.
For example, a young offender who had reoffended while on probation was initially given a longer term of probation. On appeal, he was sentenced to reformative training, which requires detention in a structured environment for at least 18 months. Reformative training in this case incorporated a significant element of deterrence but, like probation, was “geared towards the rehabilitation of the offender”, he said.
The Chief Justice’s remarks come in the wake of the Ministry of Law’s proposals in July to allow more types of offenders to be eligible for community sentences. If passed, offenders who will be eligible include those who have served a previous jail term of three months or less, and young offenders aged between 14 and 21 who have served a reformative training stint.
Singapore’s courts have long recognised the “true purpose of rehabilitation is the prevention of crime”, said CJ Menon.
Corrective training and preventive detention, which involves long periods behind bars, were introduced as deterrent penalties to help curb rising crime rates when the country grappled with serious crimes like kidnapping for ransom, gang fights and crimes committed by secret societies in earlier decades. The crime situation improved from the 1980s. In 2010, community sentences such as Mandatory Treatment Orders and short detention orders (up to 14 days) were introduced.
Going forward, regular reviews of an offender’s progress could also play a role in rehabilitative justice by detecting signs of regression earlier. Such monitoring can take place through the pre-sentence protocol introduced last year, which allows the court to direct the offender to undergo treatment, receive counselling or voluntarily participate in residential or structured programmes, before passing a sentence.
Apart of rehabilitation, ex-offenders must be reintegrated into society to prevent them from relapsing, he said. This is a prolonged effort that requires supporting agencies and the community to step in.
“The crucial point is that just as rehabilitation and review are important means of ultimately achieving the goal of crime prevention, reintegration is equally if not even more instrumental in this enterprise,” said CJ Menon.
