Adakah Hukuman Pemenjaraan adalah hukuman terbaik bagi semua kes kes Jenayah?
1) . Dalam konsep hukuman, hukuman yang terbaik adalah hukuman yang mampu mengubah pesalah kepada kehidupan yang baik dari kehidupan sebaliknya. Maka, tiada satu sifir tetap berkaitan hukuman yang sewajarnya bagi sesuatu kesalahan jenayah. Banyak faktor akan dipertimbang.
2) . Dalam kes PP v Morah Chekwube Chukwudi [2017] MLJU 958; [2017] 1 LNS 864 Mahkamah menyatakan:-
“Jurisprudence relating to sentence
[5] It is well established that there are a number of factors that courts take into consideration before sentencing. Some of them are as follows: (a) the gravity or
severity of the facts constituting the offence; (b) the circumstances in which it was committed; (c) the rampancy of such offence in the area; (d) the offender's previous record; (e) the offender's contribution and support to his family members; (f) the offenders means; (g) the effect of conviction and sentence on his job opportunities; (h) the age and health of the accused; (i) whether it is his first offence; (j) whether the accused had cooperated with the police after the commission of the offence; (k) whether the accused had pleaded guilty; (i) status
of the accused; (m) whether there was violence during the crime; (n) public interest, etc.
[6] All these factors where applicable need to be addressed by the defence to secure a just sentence. It is equally important for the prosecution to rebut the
facts adduced by the accused if they are not bona fide, as ultimately the power to sentence is placed on the trial judge and the judge had to rely on the
facts adduced in court…”
3) .Mahkamah di dalam kes, PP LWN. LEE LAI CHOI, [2009] 1 CLJ 312, di mana Mahkamah memetik sepertimana berikut:-
“..Kepentingan awam bukanlah hanya menuntut seorang tertuduh itu dipenjarakan. Sekiranya tertuduh boleh berubah tanpa dipenjarakan, ini juga boleh dianggap sebagai mengambil kira kepentingan awam. Menurut Hilbery J dalam R v. Kenneth John
Bail[1951] 35 Cr App R 164:
The public interest is indeed served and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living....”
4) . Di dalam kes Taib Bin Gemok v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 LNS 113; [1984] 1 MLJ 313 at p. 315, His Lordship Rhind J. said:
".. The modern tendency in sentencing, as I understand it, is not to try to fill the jails at every conceivable opportunity, but only to send people to prison where this is essential in the interest of society. I certainly do not regard it as in the interest of society to send people of previously good character, particularly young people, to prison when there are other adequate means of dealing with them.
In the case before me, I consider that a sentence of imprisonment was wholly wrong in principle. The appellant is a very young man of good character, and the facts of the offence disclosed no circumstances of aggravation. I am aware that the appellant was a policeman, but it has to be borne in mind that he was a very young and inexperienced policeman, and this offence was in no way connected with his duties. I do not see how it would serve the public interest to send this particular appellant to prison".
5) . Sebegitu juga di dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v. PP [2004] 4 CLJ 77 at p. 85, Mokhtar Sidin JCA menyatakan:
".. In my view the courts will not be performing their functions honestly if the seriousness of the situation is not reflected in the sentence imposed or if the sentence appears to defeat the object of the statute. This is not saying that the courts..... should at all times be severe. Each case has to be determined on its own merits. But in every case the courts must be realistic and rational.
There is room for the court to exercise mercy and leniency, even for offenders with bad records when the court forms the view that leniency at that stage of the offender's life might lead to reform. (See R v. Osenkowski [1982] 30 SASR 212; 5 A Crim R 394).”
Semoga Bermanfaat,
Ahmad Deniel Roslan
MFZ & Co
Comments