The court’s quagmire: How to deal with Amos Yee?

Singapore teen blogger Amos Yee, center, speaks to reporters while leaving the Subordinate Courts after being released on bail, Tuesday. Pic: AP.

By Carlton Tan Jun 06, 2015 

Having pronounced Amos Yee guilty, the court is now faced with the unenviable task of determining how to rehabilitate him. What should it do with the recalcitrant teenage blogger who insists on being a martyr?

Should it send him to the much-feared Reformative Training Centre (RTC), it would have to do so for at least 18 months. This would far exceed the length of custodial sentences that are typically meted out to persons guilty of charges of similar severity. (An individual was sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment for possessing 209 obscene magazines for sale while Andrew Kiong was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment for having printed 16 anti-Muslim cards and leaving them on cars which he believed belonged to Muslims.)

If it decides to impose a punitive sentence, it would mean that it considers the rehabilitation of Amos unnecessary or unimportant. Given his rejection of probation, his re-uploading of his offending video and image, and given the remarks he has recently made online, rehabilitation (at least in the eyes of the law) is necessary. It is also as important as the laws’ objectives are important.

Commenting on this issue is difficult. It is difficult to separate opinions on Amos’ guilt or innocence—informed by legal, sociological, religious or moral perspectives—from opinions on how he should be sentenced.

Since the Court has already pronounced him guilty, the question about reformative training is now not about Amos’ guilt or innocence, it is about whether courts have / should have the power to impose long custodial sentences for non-punitive purposes, and whether the courts should indeed use that power in this particular instance.

Most countries grant judges the power to impose longer custodial sentences for the purpose of corrective training (although their power to do so is far more circumscribed in other countries than in Singapore where a premium is placed on crime control and prevention).

The purpose of the Reformative Training Centre is essentially similar to corrective training sentences which may presently be imposed on repeat offenders. This corrective training sentence can extend beyond the normal sentence. The purpose is to rehabilitate the criminal. So even though it might be excessive as a punishment or unnecessary as a deterrence measure, the corrective training sentence can still be justified on rehabilitative grounds. The aim is to get the criminal to reform and to not repeat his offence when he returns to society.

In Amos Yee’s case, the criminal justice system sees him as a criminal who has been tried and convicted. His guilt has already been determined. The question of sentencing is now a question of rehabilitation more than it is one of deterrence or punishment. Thus I think it highly likely that he will be sent to the Reformative Training Centre given his rejection of the only other alternative of probation.

The problem with this is therefore not a problem with his conviction. The problem here is that longer than usual custodial sentences are too frequently meted out for the sake of rehabilitation, without due consideration of the impact it would have on the individual’s freedom. There is arguably a need for courts to balance the individual’s interest (in being free) with the society’s interest—both in general and in Amos’ case in particular.

In particular, then, the question is whether–given the courts’ confidence that the criminal will reoffend–it will be too late to try to deal with Amos Yee then.

The obvious alternative to RTC for Amos is not to let him go scot free should he break the laws again (from the court’s point of view). The alternative is to catch him when he does. The prosecution will then have to prove their case again for whichever offense they then think he is guilty of. This would, of course, be highly inconvenient. But surely a person’s freedom (for 18 months) is worth the court’s time and attention? Or are his offences so egregious and so dangerous that we cannot even risk it? If so, why do sentences for similar crimes typically only last 2-4 weeks?

All this is of course assuming that Amos Yee did indeed break the law. An esteemed judge thinks so. So if it is indeed clear that he did break the law, it should also be clear, if and when he does reoffend, that he broke the law again. There should therefore be no need for a lengthy trial and the cost to the courts may easily be limited.

Given this balance of considerations, I think it’s appropriate to say that the judge ought to just let Amos out and consider the time spent in remand prison time served. If he does reoffend again, a longer custodial sentence may be imposed and RTC considered.

Unfortunately, the nature of Amos’ offense is such that it is seldom clear where the line ought to be drawn. Unlike repeat shoplifters or molesters, Amos’ crime was speech crime. The questions of whether his speech crosses the line and of what his speech even consisted of are far more complicated in comparison. Therefore the prosecution is ironically not wrong to say it “cannot be popping back into court every other day”.

So the court is in a real quagmire. If it is clear that Amos will reoffend, why does it need to rehabilitate him right now and not later when it is a legal fact that he has reoffended? If indeed the concern is, as the prosecution claims, that too much of the state’s resources will have to be expended on this case, how good is its claim that it has a strong case against Amos?

Maybe Amos himself will have the answer for us—in 2017.