Thursday, August 8, 2013

Guilty While Innocent

The award winning documentary "West of Memphis" is a good introduction to the "Alford plea", a legal option to plea guilty while maintaining one's innocence, in order to avoid a conviction by the court.

The West Memphis Three are three teenagers from West Memphis, Arkansas, who were tried, convicted of murder, and spent 18 years and 78 days in prison when DNA evidence due to new technological advances surfaced to provide possible exoneration. But the state would not admit their error, fearing repercussions from political fall-out and potential lawsuits. A deal with the public prosecutor was struck with the Alford plea, the legal mechanism in which "no contest" pleas are entered but innocence is nevertheless maintained. Judge David Laser vacated the previous convictions, each man then entered an Alford plea to lesser charges of first and second degree murder while verbally stating their innocence, and finally set free from prison.

That could be one scenario if the cartoonist had his day in court, and the lawyers will have to work their butts off.

However, the Attorney-General's Chambers have decided it will not proceed  with the contempt of court charges against Mr Chew in light of his apology and undertaking, "which he initiated". The last three words are important. The "apology" goes something like this: "It was never my intention to scandalise the judiciary. I realise my mistake and I want to make amends for it. I draw to make people laugh, and I want to continue with my work within the boundaries of the law."

In the light of this development, we'll never know if the persecution had the legal arguments to prove their case. Lawyers referring to the win-win situation say this is "the best possible outcome for all parties involved." We'll never know if the Alford plea will be allowed here. In our binary system, no one can be innocent if the courts decides you are guilty. Heck, even if the courts absolve you of corruption charges, some high flying police commissioner can still make public declarations that you are corrupt.

Since the boundaries of the law are such shifting targets here, aspiring cartoonists should pay careful attention to what material some people might deem offensive:




12 comments:

  1. Perhaps Leslie Chew should include himself in his next set of cartoons and use SinCity kangaroo court rather than Singapore, i.e. real names replaced by nicknames, but still identifiable to local fans.
    I hope Matt Groening who created Homer Simpson will one day collaborate with cartoonists like Leslie Chew and come up with themes specially meant for his Asian fans...imagine our own Ah Loong becoming the Asian equivalent of Homer Simpson.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A good compromised outcome just in time for National Celebration and possibly a mention in the PM's National Day Rally, no ?
    Thanks for the cartoons..Yes, Leslie could have used
    "SinCity" etc instead. But give the Man a beer. He deserved our applause and more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm inclined to think the AGC let him off, not because it has suddenly turned magnanimous, but because it has too much on it's plate. The proverb says: Don't bite off more than you can Chew (pun intended). Cheers to Leslie Chew!

      Delete
    2. Not forgetting that his "apology" gave them a face-saving way out.

      Delete
  3. Those cartoons that were cited - racist and contempt of AGC - were red herrings. Go to Demon-cratic website and search for 2 particulars cartoons - those were the truly objectionable ones because they were so true and cuts to the bone. But of course they cannot single those out due to the Streisand Effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err.. which two? You never say who knows where to look?

      Delete
    2. Go and look for yourself - you may find more damning ones. Clue - look for some character wearing a pink shirt.

      Delete
  4. If a mere apology is adequate, does it not mean that the contempt of court charge is not really that serious as what they want to originally charge the cartoonist for ?

    Then can I not imply that it was just a mere bullying tactic that abusers abuse their powers not unlike those loan sharks throwing paint or burn cars to put fear into their hapless victims ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No.

      It is to demonstrate where that power, authority is situated.

      It is to demonstrate that exercising choice is not with you.

      Delete
  5. I thought there are four? How come you only put up three?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AGC almost ridiculed Singapore judiciary by charging a cartoonist. A few strips of cheeky cartoons would not have dealt as much damage to the judiciary as the incomprehensible action of some trigger-happy protectors of the law. Let's be clear, Chew's apology saved their ass and the good name of the judiciary. AGC should thank Chew for his magnanimity. Lest AGC forgets, its role is to bring all crinimals to justice regardless they wear white (collar), blue or any colours. As the adage goes: "Respect is earned."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About time the PM reigns in this loose canon, because it is shooting itself in it's own foot, and making him and the justice system here a laughing stock. The AGC lately is behaving like a punch drunk fighter, fighting it's own shadows. It is supposed to uphold and defend the law, not to abuse it.

      Delete