It must be some cruel coincidence that had this piece of news 'Low-IQ robber escapes jail, thanks to teachers' out on the same day (today's ST) as the reports about the review of the penal code.
Certainly, it is good news that the robber in question has been spared the jail term and 24 strokes of the cane and, instead, will undergo 'reformative training'. However, the circumstances under which this came about are unsatisfactory.
The reported started: 'Convicted robber EM has two of his former teachers to thank for getting him out of a long jail term and 24 lashes of the cane.' What if his teachers hadn't found out about his case?
EM has an IQ of 66 (average person's IQ is 90-100) and he was convicted of robbery and hitting a policeman. It stated that the district judge 'had not been aware' of his low IQ. How could that happen?
The DPP had pointed out that he was 'no drooling idiot' (a phrase I find pretty offensive), had committed these offences after having been at Gracehaven juvenile home for an earlier theft offence (guess she was implying that it didn't 'reform' him) and said 'He must not be allowed to use his low IQ as a wild card to whisk himself out of prison.' In other words, don't give chance anymore.
If I remember correctly, he didn't try to 'use his low IQ as a wild card to whisk himself out of prison'. It was an alert former teacher who read the news who brought this up. And if I understand correctly about low IQ, if you have a limited understanding of the world and how it works, you have a limited understanding of the world and how it works. In other words, how many times you go to prison, juvenile home or whatever may not make much difference to your understanding of the world and how it works. In fact, with the 'right' (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) combination of factors, you could actually turn out 'worse' than before you went in.
In the last part of the report, the High Court judge 'urged lawyers to fulfil their obligations to their clients instead of just presenting a cursory three-paragraph request for leniency', which was what was submitted by EM's lawyer.
My, look at how the whole system failed EM. Thankfully, his teacher read the newspaper on the right day and had the conviction to come forward to help him, and a second teacher volunteered to supervise him. Hurray for teachers and the support system for people with special needs.
How many others are in jail because their teachers didn't happen to read about their cases in the news?
Certainly, it is good news that the robber in question has been spared the jail term and 24 strokes of the cane and, instead, will undergo 'reformative training'. However, the circumstances under which this came about are unsatisfactory.
The reported started: 'Convicted robber EM has two of his former teachers to thank for getting him out of a long jail term and 24 lashes of the cane.' What if his teachers hadn't found out about his case?
EM has an IQ of 66 (average person's IQ is 90-100) and he was convicted of robbery and hitting a policeman. It stated that the district judge 'had not been aware' of his low IQ. How could that happen?
The DPP had pointed out that he was 'no drooling idiot' (a phrase I find pretty offensive), had committed these offences after having been at Gracehaven juvenile home for an earlier theft offence (guess she was implying that it didn't 'reform' him) and said 'He must not be allowed to use his low IQ as a wild card to whisk himself out of prison.' In other words, don't give chance anymore.
If I remember correctly, he didn't try to 'use his low IQ as a wild card to whisk himself out of prison'. It was an alert former teacher who read the news who brought this up. And if I understand correctly about low IQ, if you have a limited understanding of the world and how it works, you have a limited understanding of the world and how it works. In other words, how many times you go to prison, juvenile home or whatever may not make much difference to your understanding of the world and how it works. In fact, with the 'right' (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) combination of factors, you could actually turn out 'worse' than before you went in.
In the last part of the report, the High Court judge 'urged lawyers to fulfil their obligations to their clients instead of just presenting a cursory three-paragraph request for leniency', which was what was submitted by EM's lawyer.
My, look at how the whole system failed EM. Thankfully, his teacher read the newspaper on the right day and had the conviction to come forward to help him, and a second teacher volunteered to supervise him. Hurray for teachers and the support system for people with special needs.
How many others are in jail because their teachers didn't happen to read about their cases in the news?
Comments