> Any compassion the state shows is a lie to cover for discretionary enforcement, which is a pernicious type of corruption
You actually think there is no discretionary enforcement of the law in Singapore? Like every other jurisdiction on earth, Singapore has prosecutorial discretion. [0] A handful of jurisdictions, such as Germany, traditionally reject prosecutorial jurisdiction in theory, but that theory belies the fact that even in Germany it has always been inescapable in practice–no prosecutor on this earth has the resources to prosecute every known crime in their jurisdiction, they always have to pick and choose which cases to prosecute and how much effort and resources to put into each prosecution, and there is always going to be an element of subjective judgement in that decision, which will inevitably be coloured by the prosecutors' beliefs/culture/politics/attitudes/biases.
And, is prosecutorial discretion in Singapore applied in a purely impartial and non-discriminatory way? Considering Singapore's lengthy and ongoing history of politically motivated prosecutions (see for example [1]), it is rather obvious that it isn't.
Most jurisdictions accept that factors like intellectual disability need to be taken into account as mitigating circumstances, frequently leading to more lenient punishment, and sentencing which focuses more on protection and rehabilitation than less on retribution and deterrence, compared to an offender with normal (or above-normal) intellectual capacity. The idea that intellectually disabled people ought to be treated with particular leniency is one supported by the United Nations, and even by the US Supreme Court (which held, in the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, that executing the intellectually disabled is unconstitutional)–so extending them that leniency is hardly a "lie to cover for discretionary enforcement", nor a "pernicious type of corruption"
You actually think there is no discretionary enforcement of the law in Singapore? Like every other jurisdiction on earth, Singapore has prosecutorial discretion. [0] A handful of jurisdictions, such as Germany, traditionally reject prosecutorial jurisdiction in theory, but that theory belies the fact that even in Germany it has always been inescapable in practice–no prosecutor on this earth has the resources to prosecute every known crime in their jurisdiction, they always have to pick and choose which cases to prosecute and how much effort and resources to put into each prosecution, and there is always going to be an element of subjective judgement in that decision, which will inevitably be coloured by the prosecutors' beliefs/culture/politics/attitudes/biases.
And, is prosecutorial discretion in Singapore applied in a purely impartial and non-discriminatory way? Considering Singapore's lengthy and ongoing history of politically motivated prosecutions (see for example [1]), it is rather obvious that it isn't.
Most jurisdictions accept that factors like intellectual disability need to be taken into account as mitigating circumstances, frequently leading to more lenient punishment, and sentencing which focuses more on protection and rehabilitation than less on retribution and deterrence, compared to an offender with normal (or above-normal) intellectual capacity. The idea that intellectually disabled people ought to be treated with particular leniency is one supported by the United Nations, and even by the US Supreme Court (which held, in the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, that executing the intellectually disabled is unconstitutional)–so extending them that leniency is hardly a "lie to cover for discretionary enforcement", nor a "pernicious type of corruption"
[0] https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/prosecutorial-...
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/singapore-fir...