Much has been said about one 'promising' young man's future was restored when the courts bound him over for rape.
In its written judgement, Justice Raus Sharif who presided with another two judge in an appeal hearing cited facts of the case that enabled the court to find the way it did.
Mitigating factors that helped the young man included his help with police investigations and the manner of which the police report was made. More importantly, there was no coercion from his part in his role in this crime.
All these factors helped in the courts binding him for five years instead of a custodial sentence.
However, there are those who are keen, for whatever reasons to look into this case and add fuel to fire by claiming that this young man was 'freed' by the courts.
For example, The Malaysian Insider chooses 'Rapists freed by courts match medical definition of peadophiles', when in fact they were not freed, and the findings of the court was that they were guilty of a crime but bound over in its sentence. Two very different scenarios.
Similarly, Anwar was freed from 'Sodomy 1' from technicality, but found that he was indeed invoplved in the act, but in 'Sodomy 2' his defence was not called as there was no grounds for a case.
Do you see the difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment