Okay, maybe in this case = inadvertently. But it still shows how much the SG Parliament is trying too hard tomicro manage things: perhaps a +ve way forward would be for parliament to just give guidelines within the penal code and other statutes: e.g. the 'recommended' punishment for e.g. theft, extortion, uncensored films, managing a brothel: i.e.: the words 'shall be liable to...' rather than 'for a term of not less than XX years'...
PS: there is a Probation of Offenders (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act 37 of 1993): perhaps this act can specify that those with IQ below certain level will be more favourably chosen for probation in lieu of jail etc.
Where parliament is concerned about judges being overly lenient, parliament may make clarification within the penal code that the minimum sentence shall apply to first time offenders without any significant mitigating factors.
PS: there is a Probation of Offenders (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act 37 of 1993): perhaps this act can specify that those with IQ below certain level will be more favourably chosen for probation in lieu of jail etc.
Where parliament is concerned about judges being overly lenient, parliament may make clarification within the penal code that the minimum sentence shall apply to first time offenders without any significant mitigating factors.