10歲強姦犯應接受行為治療而非被標籤?!


蘋果見倒

「法改會昨發表《 14歲以下男童無性能力的普通法推定》報告書,詳述有關推定如何不合時宜。這項源自羅馬法的推定,將 14歲視為青春期的開始年齡。在 19世紀的一個案例,法官訂明了「 14歲以下男童生理上不具備干犯強姦罪的能力」,香港一直沿用至今,令到多宗證據確鑿的男童強姦案,因被告年紀小,只能控以刑罰較輕的協助及教唆他人強姦,或猥褻侵犯罪。法改會秘書施道嘉表示,事實證明, 14歲以下男童可具性交能力,但香港的法律卻拒絕承認,顯然違反常理。」

「防止虐待兒童會總幹事雷張慎佳則擔心,實施建議會令一些出於一時衝動犯案的男童承擔過重的刑責。」

「香港性教育會會長兼犯罪學家黎定基指出,過去 10年兒童性罪行個案輕微增加, 15歲以下強姦案約 8至 11宗, 14歲以下性侵犯只能列作非禮案,總宗數達 100多宗。他認為此類案件普遍,但反對法改會建議,因兒童犯案通常源於性衝動及不懂自制,應接受行為治療而非被標籤,『咁細個就俾人話強姦犯,係人生好大污點。好多少年犯坐完監出嚟,第二日再去非禮人』」。

醉駕 / 藥駕係一時失策;強姦、非禮、傷人殺人係一時衝動;高官亂up係一時鬼拍後尾枕;見死不救係依足指引;醫療事故係情有可原。有邊個人冇犯過錯?佢都止不過係常人o者。

講出呢d說話o既人明顯冇小學生常識,唔知道錯有輕微,一般、嚴重等等程度之分。小朋友有功課唔做去抄,考試出貓係錯,但冇人話過呢d會坐監或者要公布佢個名。但強姦呢?一個35歲o既人一時衝動強姦個20歲,同兩個13歲拖個12歲上天台輪邊樣對受害人更傷?果個連續強佢個妹兩年o既9歲淫魔呢?點解強姦犯唔可以公布大名?一隻咬人o既癲狗可唔可以唔帶口罩?你見倒有人想摸佢會唔會喝停?定係話佢生而為一隻狗,應該同其他正常o既狗一樣,有機會去學習改過,等佢知道下次唔好咬人。咁俾佢咬咗o既人點算呢?我o地而家已經好「人道」唔會啪d強姦犯,但有咩要學習o既唔該入監倉學,害咗人就要留案底負責受靶等價交換,咁樣先係愛護其他兒童,而唔係虐待呢d魔童呀。

10歲強姦犯應接受行為治療而非被標籤?!” 有 26 則迴響

  1. 「 他認為此類案件普遍,但反對法改會建議,因兒童犯案通常源於性衝動及不懂自制,應接受行為治療而非被標籤……」

    哈,有那一個強姦犯不是「源於性衝動及不懂自制」?

    結論是,所有強姦犯都「應接受行為治療而非被標籤」?

  2. 我一樓都贊成恢復宮刑,最多仁慈d行刑時准食兩粒panadol。相信犯案率唔止減半,不過前題係女方必須有反抗過,唔係事後反口俾人屈果個慘。另,女方唔夠稱但自願反而唔駛宮,10歲男仔都可以強姦,點解10歲女仔唔可以自願呢。

    哈,我判就死得人多。

  3. SPZ

    我一樓都贊成恢復宮刑,最多仁慈d行刑時准食兩粒panadol。
    ——————————————-
    Wow, this horrific creativity of yours really cracks me up more than it shocks me. Who knows the next step you might want to take is to “Talibanize" the present legal system based on English law by amputating the arms of all petty thieves and shop lifters. LOL.

  4. SPZ

    哈,有那一個強姦犯不是「源於性衝動及不懂自制」?……… 點解強姦犯唔可以公布大名
    —————————————–
    You missed the entire point here. No one is defending rape (which is a horrendous crime by all measures), not even rape committed by minors. But the law considers the fact that people under a certain age may not be fully mature to understand the seriousness and gravity of their wrongdoings even if they already have the physical ability to commit a crime. (Isn’t this why all civilized societies have a separate justice framework for juveniles?). Applying the legal doctrine of Parens patriae (“parent of the nation"), when a legally defined juvenile committed a crime, rehabilitative considerations are given much more consideration than in sentencing an adult because the law presumes that young persons are at a stage where they lack the mental maturity to appreciate the gravity of their actions and should be given (at least) a chance for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

  5. SPZ

    咁俾佢咬咗o既人點算呢?
    ————————-
    This is another misreading of the situation. Rape, murder etc are known as “crimes" (刑事罪) for they are offences that are committed against the public or the state and that is why they are different from civil offences (民事诉讼). Therefore, criminal offenders received their sentences (jail, fine etc) provided for under the Penal Code. If the sentence of every criminal is decided by"咁俾佢咬咗o既人(受害者)點算呢?", then society will be in chaos. Why? Because rape victim A may want to castrate her violator, then rape victim B may want to take her violator’s life away altogether, then rape victim C may want to parade her violator throughout the streets and lynch him after that, then rape victim D demand her violator to be burnt at stake….. (the list goes on endlessly). The criminal justice system is there to administer justice on behalf of the public and if it ends up a tool for every criminal victim to exact revenge in the ways they deem fit, then we might as well do away with the criminal justice system altogether and allow every criminal victim to the right to personally punish the criminal as in ways which they deem fit which will no doubt bring us to a Hobbesian nightmare.

  6. 強姦要閹 變成 撻嘢要斬手、吐口水要切脷,呢d咪叫無限上綱lor。
    講緊唔應該一刀切用年紀去分,而應該用行有幾惡去分呀。冇人話過幼稚園學生揭人裙仔要閹呀,但當罪犯知道自己做緊乜而做就要受靶。而點去衡量佢知唔知,問法官陪審團唔好問我。即使將可強姦最低年齡降至10歲,而有11歲疑犯說服倒人佢係低b過10歲o既,咁都應該放佢一馬。
    對受害者負責 變成 受每一個受害者想佢受o既刑?!咩logic?!

    好心唔好成日加埋自己d幻想啦,淘姨冇氣理你。雖然我估薯會話我呢個留言都多餘。;p

  7. SPZ

    講緊唔應該一刀切用年紀去分,而應該用行有幾惡去分呀。冇人話過幼稚園學生揭人裙仔要閹呀,但當罪犯知道自己做緊乜而做就要受靶。而點去衡量佢知唔知,問法官陪審團唔好問我。
    —————————————————
    Look, in law, when weighing evidence against a suspect, the court must consider two elements in finding the suspect guilty of a crime: 1) the criminal act itself; 2) the criminal intent (犯罪故意) also known in Latin as “mens rea".The court must determine that there is sufficient evidence for both elements in finding a suspect guilty. On the second element, the law generally takes the view of young persons under a certain age are not fully capable of weighing the consequences and gravity of their actions such that they can form criminal intent that is comparable to that of an adult. That is also why, by the same vein, the law often limits or restricts people under a certain age from certain activities, from buying liquor, cigarettes, lottery to entering into legal contracts, marriages, voting in elections which illustrates the law’s belief that young persons of a certain age are not full capable like adults of careful thinking and awareness of the consequences of their actions. That’s why young persons under a certain age are generally viewed with “limited legal responsibility". The judge and the jury, unlike what you have said, would have taken this legal presumption of the absence of “mens rea" with regards to sentencing a juvenile because of the reasoning above.

    Let’s take things further. Suppose you have your way and that the law “唔應該一刀切用年紀去分,而應該用行有幾惡去分", then all the laws regarding drinking, smoking, viewing rate III movies, buying Six Mark, statutory rape, voting, signing and entering into commercial contracts and even compulsory schooling of 9 years would all have to be changed because the basis of these laws are based on the fact that young persons of certain age are not capable of careful thinking and awareness to engage in these activities responsibly or protect even their own well-being. Given these implications, your notion of “唔應該一刀切用年紀去分,而應該用行有幾惡去分" will then open a classic “floodgate" of arguments (stated by Lord Denning) bombarding the courts, where people start putting forward cases to the courts that they can marry at age of 12, drink at the age of 9, buy Six Mark at age of 10, vote at the age of 14 and be held responsible for applying a credit card at age of 15… the list goes on.

    Indeed, given the above, i actually agree that when you said “我判就死得人多" because your “唔應該一刀切用年紀去分,而應該用行有幾惡去分" will open a can of worms without you knowing how to put them back in and ruin the consistency in the legal system in the process.

    對受害者負責 變成 受每一個受害者想佢受o既刑?!咩logic?!
    ————————————————–
    Look, if you do read, i have said that the criminal justice system is established to administer justice on behalf of society as a whole and not on the individual basis of every different victim. If the courts have to punish criminals on the basis that is “responsible" to every single individual victim (like you have put it categorically), doesn’t it mean that every time it passes a sentence on a criminal, it has to satisfy the wishes of the victim in question? You have advocated castration for rapist as the proper punishment, but another rapist victim may think that even castration is too lenient and thinks that mutilation of all of the rapist’s inner and outer sexual reproductive system is the only “appropriate" sentence that is “responsible" to the victim? The bottom line is, the criminal justice is primarily responsible for administering justice on behalf of society as a whole, it cannot be seen as being “responsible" to individual victims when it delivers sentences on convicted criminals.

  8. SPZ

    強姦要閹 變成 撻嘢要斬手、吐口水要切脷,呢d咪叫無限上綱lor。
    —————————————–
    If rape warrants castration, then why can’t armed robbery be punished via amputation of the arm that holds the weapon during the robbery? If rape warrants castration, then what stops the law from using the same methods of abuse (such as pouring hot water or putting a clothes iron on the body) to punish the very same act child/maid abusers had committed to their victims? You may want such a medieval 衙门 style of justice, but i am certain that most of us will gladly not have in our judicial system or statute books.

  9. SPZ

    好心唔好成日加埋自己d幻想啦,淘姨冇氣理你。
    ————————————
    Well, call it “幻想" if you wish. But at least when one is capable of thinking about future or possible implications of those things you have advocated. Don’t tell me you also call judges “幻想" when they decide a case by taking future/possible/potential implications into consideration in a legal case. LOL.

    雖然我估薯會話我呢個留言都多餘。;p
    ———————————
    Hoho. Isn’t 真理越辩越明白?Regretful that some seems to think otherwise. =P

  10. SPZ

    @hevangel
    所有強姦犯不論年紀一於官刑對付﹐保證香港強姦率立即減半。
    ———————————————————–
    Sheer absurdity. Why don’t we amputate the arms armed robbers, drunk drivers, molesters used to commit their crimes as well to ensure that armed robbery, drunk driving and molestation will immediately be halved in Hong Kong? Think Taliban-held territory must be your ideal judicial home. LOL.

  11. Sheer absurdity. Why don’t we amputate the arms armed robbers, drunk drivers, molesters used to commit their crimes as well to ensure that armed robbery, drunk driving and molestation will immediately be halved in Hong Kong? Think Taliban-held territory must be your ideal judicial home. LOL.
    ———————————————————–
    殺人者死﹐強姦者宮。偷竊倒不用切手﹐因為偷竊只是財物損失﹐並非對人類尊嚴的踐踏。對“人”犯的罪行便要嚴刑對付﹐因為受害人受到的傷害的沒有得番轉頭﹐亦不能夠有任何事可以對之保償。

  12. 「會唔會流血不止﹐死鬼左架。」

    其實我有招獨門秘技,叫「閹閹不息」,就是把犯人閹了,駁番,再閹,再駁……如是者循環不息,直至犯人老死,此招一出,保證以後再無強姦。

    哈哈。

  13. 「殺人者死強姦者宮」

    hey,人總會犯錯,我o地唔應該標籤同歧視佢,你覺得佢對社會有威脅咩?咁係你o既問題,世上邊有積犯,只係其他人唔體諒佢o地逼佢o地重犯o者,一切都係社會o既錯。;p

  14. SPZ

    @hevangel
    殺人者死﹐強姦者宮。偷竊倒不用切手﹐因為偷竊只是財物損失﹐並非對人類尊嚴的踐踏。對“人”犯的罪行便要嚴刑對付﹐因為受害人受到的傷害的沒有得番轉頭﹐亦不能夠有任何事可以對之保償。
    ——————————-
    Armed robbery is a serious crime that strikes fear into law-abiding citizens. Looks like you never got the experience of being mugged by someone with a weapon such that you can trivialize it so lightly. You know how it feels like not to feel safe to walk home? Moreover, I can see that you avoid talking about drunk driving. Drunk driving is a such a dangerous wrong doing that may cripple or even kill innocent pedestrians. Following your logic, why can’t we amputate the arms of drunk drivers? In drunk driving, “受害人受到的傷害的沒有得番轉頭﹐亦不能夠有任何事可以對之保償", so can we, by the same reason, amputate the driver’s arms?

    阁下真是歪理连篇。

  15. SPZ

    hey,人總會犯錯,我o地唔應該標籤同歧視佢,你覺得佢對社會有威脅咩?咁係你o既問題,世上邊有積犯,只係其他人唔體諒佢o地逼佢o地重犯o者,一切都係社會o既錯。;p
    ——————–
    If you can save your energy for this sarcasm for reading and research, you will be less ignorant. While crimes of any kind are inexcusable, have you ever wonder about the socio-economic factors that contributes to crime? Have you ever ponder how class, race and gender play a role in crime? Learn to count your blessings if you are spared growing up in a dysfunctional family and eking out your existence in a slum.

    Oh, by the way, didn’t you know that if you are the offspring of the upper class elites, you may just get a slap on the wrist if you broke the law 3 times for the same offence? On top of your privileged background, you can afford a Senior Counsel to get you off the hook. That’s 包致金法官’s niece for you.
    Judge’s Niece Avoids Jail in Hong Kong Police Assault As Probation Upheld
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-06/hong-kong-judge-s-niece-should-be-jailed-for-assault-prosecutor-says.html

  16. SPZ

    hey,人總會犯錯,我o地唔應該標籤同歧視佢,你覺得佢對社會有威脅咩?咁係你o既問題,世上邊有積犯,只係其他人唔體諒佢o地逼佢o地重犯o者,一切都係社會o既錯。;p
    ———————————–
    And do i have to also remind you the public outcry over how Sally Aw was not prosecuted by then Secretary of Justice Elsie Leung for falsifying the sales figures and accounts? 若胡仙不是老懵懂的老友及全国政协, 而是一个普通师奶,不知胡仙会是咩下场喽. 哈哈。

  17. SPZ

    醉駕撞死人就要填命﹐冇撞到人就終身停牌。
    ———————–
    But what if the drunk driver left his/her victim(s) a “vegetable" or crippled? Do you then require him/her to become a “vegetable" or chop off same limb his/her victims lost in a “an eye for an eye" fashion?

    不知阁下又会怎么处理虐童/虐妻/虐俑者?假如干下虐待的犯人向受害者倒沸水/油或用烫斗烙伤而留下永久的心理及肉体疤痕,那么以你的“受害人受到的傷害的沒有得番轉頭﹐亦不能夠有任何事可以對之保償”的论述作为判刑的依据,一个文明的司法制度岂不是要向虐童/虐妻/虐俑犯施以同样的暴行?

  18. 醉駕撞死人﹐說到底也是意外﹐不能說是蓄意謀殺。殺人或植物人也好﹐判重刑需要有意圖。

    虐待犯嘛﹐他們的腦袋不正常﹐重刑沒有阻嚇力﹐替他們進行腦前葉手術﹐修正他們腦內的暴力問題﹐便可以放他們回社會了。

  19. SPZ

    醉駕撞死人﹐說到底也是意外﹐不能說是蓄意謀殺。殺人或植物人也好﹐判重刑需要有意圖。
    ————————
    但薯(淘按:應為淘)作的出发点是 “咁俾佢咬咗o既人點算呢?”,难道你就忘了吗?况且,你不是说“醉駕撞死人就要填命”,为何突然转肽?真奇怪。呵呵。

    虐待犯嘛﹐他們的腦袋不正常﹐重刑沒有阻嚇力﹐替他們進行腦前葉手術﹐修正他們腦內的暴力問題﹐便可以放他們回社會了。
    —————————————-
    我还以为阁下有惊天动地的良策,原来就只是用一个很大的假设 (“虐待犯嘛﹐他們的腦袋不正常”)为自己脱身。虐待犯在庭上能否以精神问题为减罪因素,要精神专科在个别案件坚定,不是任由你一竹竿式地假设便是。原来也不过只是混淆视听。

    再说,就算照你说“殺人者死﹐強姦者宮”, 那么如果一个犯人后来被发现是无辜的,那么你岂不是请“薯”这位“接驳”祖师爷回来帮忙呢?恐怕自居“接驳”祖师爷的江湖术士到时也无计可施, 而枉作阉人的无辜者也欲哭无泪喽。

  20. 溫馨提示:網友請自重,由2009年8月起,所有涉及粗言穢語、人身攻擊、挖苦嘲諷等不當用語的留言,將一律刪除,不容爭議。

    “If you can save your energy for this sarcasm for reading and research, you will be less ignorant."

    「恐怕自居“接驳”祖师爷的江湖术士到时也无计可施」

    冇乜quota剩,sorry。

  21. SPZ

    任何罪行应受到适当的法律制裁,而罪犯的责任是不能用任何理由去推卸。但是,当人们漠视犯罪同各种社会问题错综复杂的关系,认为犯罪仅仅单纯是个法律同惩教问题,而不从一个宏观社会角度去探索及解决犯罪问题,再多的严刑峻法也不过是敷衍塞责罢了。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s