Hong Kong Courts Sentences - Report Example

Hong Kong Courts Sentences of To what extent do you agree that the sentences delivered by the Hong Kong Courtsare too lenient and not able to reflect the abhorrence of the society? Introduction It is evident from Hong Kong’s sentences that the delivered sentences do not reflect evils being done in the society because they are executed with a lot of leniency. As a result the societies have been faced with recurrent problems which seem not to be ending. The government should therefore work hand in hand with the law courts to ensure there are correct measures and laws that will uphold the integrity of Hong Kong’s society. It will not be wrong to say that, Hong Kong’s courts have been delivering their sentences with leniency. This can be attested by the cases below and how they were handled. To a great extent the sentences are too lenient and they tend to overlook and cover a lot of issues which aught to have been addressed. We will consider various cases and pin point how they have been addressed and the possible leniencies that are associated with them. Hong Kong law courts have been criticized by the way they handle trials and the process of criminal litigation in general. The process clearly shows leniency which makes the whole process unsuccessful contrary to what is expected. This has lead to covering of criminal practices which undermine the integrity of Hong Kong’s society; as a result, this society may seem to be having valuable morals and practices which in the actual sense if scrutinized properly, hardly exists. The immense power given to the Hong Kong courts, are the major determinant of problems experienced in sentencing cases. This has brought more harm on individuals and the society at large. There is no longer justice being practiced and what determines how a case will be handled remains in the hands of the Hong Kong courts. Hong Kong courts constitutionally are semi-autonomous and this has the capacity of giving them power to make their independent decisions and sentencing without much questioning, this can give room for leniency since every decision made by the courts becomes biding and final. Examples of the Most Affected Sectors Starting with one of the most current case of the two individuals who were jailed due to the immigration scam, according to my view, the sentences were so lenient. The case involved a woman and Singaporean man who were jailed for a period not exceeding two years for offences related to forgery. The woman was in possession of a counterfeit passport and her original Chinese passport was later found during a thorough body search. The man also had a counterfeit passport. The counterfeit passports showed that they were Singaporean and according to them they were lovers. The district court jailed the two whereupon, the woman was charged with an account of false representation and conspiracy by the immigration department. She was to serve a 20 months imprisonment. The man on the other hand was charged with conspiracy and possession of travel documents that were false. He was to serve a jail sentence of two years. Considering the cases, the sentencing was lenient, what if after the two years the same scenario repeats itself. Lenient sentencing will make individuals not to fear the law and such avenues can even be used by terrorists who may be planning an attack. Hong Kong courts should therefore come up with very strong measures which can prevent such cases. If the two managed to make their way through with the fake passports, imagine how many people can use the same avenue to obtain Chinese services at no extra fee. If a heavy penalty and a jail sentence of say ten years is put into place, such cases may greatly reduce. According to the department of justice, a driver who was charged with careless driving case had amendment on his case which is set to be heard again on 6th February 2012. According to the investigators, the man is believed to have intentionally run his car injuring and killing two men aged 24 and 45. The man was initially charged with murder but when the case was brought before Eastern Magistrates’ court, the sentence was amended and the defendant released upon producing a bail. As it is speculated, a different sentence may be issued by the ‘Department of Justice’ once the case is heard again. This sentencing shows that, there was no finality in the sentencing that had earlier on been done, there is some leniency for the driver, the driver who acted recklessly ended up killing an innocent person and still he is released on bail. The question still remains, what if the driver may consider doing the same again because he will be out there as a free man and of course if he had ill intentions he may as well target another individual. Hong Kong courts should thus consider reviewing some of its sentencing so as to clearly reflect and portray evils done by the society and at the same time protect its loyal citizens as well. On December 07, 2011; a woman was jailed for 25 years for the crime of drug trafficking. A 31 year old woman was in possession of the drugs when he was caught in Hong Kong’s International airport departure hall. The woman had Methamphetamine weighing 1.916kgs. Although the sentence was severe enough, it can still be considered lenient because, drug trafficking in other countries receives capital punishment where one can be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. This has ensured that the countries with this policy completely eliminate this vice in the society since it is the core to many criminal activities and money laundering. Although Hong Kong have made considerable efforts to end drug trafficking for example amending the act on 6th July, 1999, its effects have not been much felt. This amendment categorized drug trafficking to be a serious crime and as such it is expected that the Hong Kong court should follow suit and give very severe sentences, that is, capital sentences like life imprisonment. Sentencing an individual to 25 years will not help much if the person can still be freed after that duration to continue with his acts. There should be a way in which this vice is dealt with once and for all. The way in which Hong Kong courts issues sentences is also contributed by the fact that, there is no enough pressure from the public who know less about laws. There are also individuals who are too afraid to complain. This is due to the reason that; many fear the consequences that may arise as a result of filling a case. There are other members of the society who has recurrent and professional relationships with the state officials like the judges and the police. They thus become worried about what may follow that is, the consequences resulting from the case filing which will end up causing a strained relationship. If the relationship doe not work for them, they will consider themselves having lost. It is thus evident that, most cases ends up being withdrawn, not pursuable or the complainant admitting that he is comfortable with the sentence given by the court no matter how lenient it may seem. The court rulings are also lenient due to the weak rule of law in Hong Kong. There has been continuous use of the rule of law for geopolitical purposes. There is therefore need to regulate the jurisdiction of the court of appeal when it comes to legal issues, if this is done, then cases which receive lenient sentences because of political influences shall have been avoided. There is some sort of sovereignty of the Chinese over Hong Kong court rulings and they are generally favored when it comes to cases between a Chinese and non-Chinese. The Hong Kong courts have been lenient when it comes to rulings against the Chinese people. There is need to amend the mini-constitution which seems to pose a great threat to liberty, the constitution basically permits leniency in the courts and the only way to eliminate this is by amending them. When it comes to issues of human rights, the Hong Kong courts have been lenient in issuing sentences because there are various human rights violations within the country which seems never ending. Take for example child labor, it continues to be practiced under the very eyes of the judges and they seem not to bother because, such practices leads to cheap labor which in turns improves economic status of the country. The common policy of the ‘one country, two systems’ no longer works and many have viewed it as a major failure. Although the Human rights are well covered by the basic law ‘Bill of rights Ordinance (Cap. 383)’ (Heilbronn G, 1998). It is evident from the courts rulings that they are not followed to the later when sentencing is done. In general, Hong Kong courts uphold civil liberties and respect of human rights but the core issues still remain undressed. Some of which include the excessive police force, lack of homosexual protection laws, inadequate protection of the labor rights and restricted assembly freedom which is normally restricted by what is known as ‘public order ordinance.’ When the public have issues they can raise them through public procession which according to the ‘public order ordinance’ should consists of 30 or more persons. It should also take place upon notification to the public commissioner one week in advance. This means that as a single person, one is not entitled to this right and being a group does not guarantee success either because the public commissioner has the power to reject the procession if he thinks that the process may jeopardize public security or safety. This gives no room for criticisms against the courts decisions and leniency when it comes to cases and the way it handles the sentencing. There is another major reason why Hong Kong courts have been issuing lenient sentences without major criticisms, when a sentence is passed and complain lodged, the people who make investigations are the police and the feedback is brought to the court. There are a lot of possibilities that, the feedback will lack objectiveness, fairness and openness needed. Only few cases end up being substantiated and handled effectively to the later. Take for example a case filled by a civilian against a police officer, another police officer is the one who will carry the investigations and with the team mentality, he or she will try as much to ensure that he safeguards the integrity of his or her colleague, it is therefore most probable that he will end up with findings in favor of his colleague. Many complainants will withdraw their cases even before a second sentence is issued. There is thus a lot of autonomy and power vested on Hong Kong courts and as such they make rulings which do not openly reveal what happens in the society and criminal activities ends up being overlooked. The public are not allowed to investigate the judges because it is believed that, the civilian have no understanding of the judges and do not understand the court for them to pass or evaluate any misconduct and pass judgment .It will therefore remain the responsibility of the Hong Kong courts to sentence individuals using their discretion even though some of their actions are unjustifiable. There is therefore a free room for leniency and biasness when it comes to sentencing. To a great extent, the Hong Kong court will continue issuing lenient sentences without questioning from the public because of this partial right. Even though people tend to agree that government officials like the judges need some sort of supervisions in order to be accountable, a debate still exists on how to do the exercise effectively without compromise of the judge’s rights, morale, public expectation, law enforcement and the judge’s mission. Interested public who would wish to investigate the court rulings are required to have been certified to have read various law books and passed some examinations in that field. This has made it very hard for anyone who is not a professional in that area to pursue all these studies just for the purposes of criticizing the court’s rulings which he or she will not be sure of winning, many will regard this as a waste of time and effort. If all these are considered, many people will opt to give the judges the final say when it comes to sentencing criminals and their word becomes final, it thus becomes very hard to question it on the basis of leniency. It can be agreed that the Hong Kong courts are faced with major injustice practices including that of sentencing. Sentencing has been done in the recent past with a lot of lenience without regard to societies’ morals. Even with this, there is a big gap and knowledge difference between the lawyers and the general public. Some members of the society are ignorant about what is happening and will hardly raise complains against a case while others, although are not ignorant, they lack mechanisms and ways through which they can effectively air their voice of dissatisfaction. Having in mind that Hong Kong law courts represent the government, it is assumed that what is communicated by the lawyers are simply government take on various criminal issues, it becomes therefore very difficult to sue the government and come out a victor. Another major cause of the leniency of the Hong Kong sentences is brought about by the fact that, the public has inadequate knowledge on their rights and how they can go about reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. There is lack of enough evidences or theoretical support with regard to public security. This is to say that, the law courts do very little to protect individuals’ rights and support them by the sentences they give when a case is filled against someone. The only source where the society can get to know more about their rights are just a few written books of which very few lay readers take time to understand, this makes it hard for the individuals abhorrence of the society to be brought on board as expected, people will just be comfortable with the lenient sentence given without pushing for the best course of action. There is less study in the field of criminal justice and the general process. In the past ten years, this has slightly increased although it had been neglected for a long time in Hong Kong. There are few institutions offering criminology in Hong Kong. There is therefore lack of enough judges in the Hong Kong’s courts with very few new judges. There is limited public information when it comes to issues of sentencing criminals. The whole duty still lies with the judges with the civilians looking up for the judges to give them direction and way foreword regarding any case brought in the courts. It therefore becomes very impossible to question a sentence when you do not have evidences against the court’s ruling. Although not everyone is satisfied with the rulings generally made by the judges, many people will not go back to appeal or ask for the redress of the case. It is no longer a miracle for cases to be dismissed on light grounds or very lenient sentences given without any complain from the public. Conclusion The concept of lenient sentences by Hong Kong court happens to a great extent however it is very difficult for the general public to question this issue because they do not understand in totality the power concept since it requires much study which cannot be done by anybody who is interested in seeing his case handled effectively. It is therefore impossible for the common citizen to understand deep concepts underlying sentencing and how to effectively question the courts’ ruling against an individual or a case. The nature, control and exercise therefore remain the sole responsibility of the court and the judges involved. Judges will also use their power to in exerting control over decisions they have made that negatively affects the public. The fact that not many people have filled cases against sentences made by the Hong Kong court does not mean that they have been fair and just in their rulings, if many people are investigated, they will admit that there has been a lot of leniency but they can do nothing against that due to limited power and knowledge. Reference Heilbronn, G. (1998). Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong. London: Longman Group Publishers. Read More