Monday, 16 March 2015

Current affairs post. Luo Tianhong 32

Sorry mrs woon for my late post, but I had problems with my strait times app.

Planned protest in support of father and son facing murder charges in Malaysia aborted

This article is talking about a man, chan, who had tried to rob the family, and slashed the arm of the wife, kuek. The father and son rushed too her help and knocked the robber to the ground with a pipe, and the robber died. The father and son was faced with murder charges, and there is a protest against it. The family is pleading not guilty to the murder charge, saying that he is still alive when they tied him up, and it was unclear how he died.

I feel that the family should be facing a murder charge. Yes, I think they should. First, let's look at this from the perspective of the law. Even though the man is robbing the family, he did not deserve to die. However, the man clearly died from his wounds, which means that the family is the cause of the victims death. When they pleaded not guilty to the murder, it is a flat out denial to the fact that they caused the death. In the article, it is said that the robber had already died when they went back home from the clinic. Which means that they are the murderers of the man.
However, they are acting in self defense. In theory, they should not be faced with murder. However, in this circumstance, I think it cannot stand. The wife has slash wounds on the arm. Even though the man has a knife, he did not meant to kill. This means that the family was not in danger of their lives. Thus, murder under this cannot be justified under self defense, as only when your life is in danger can you kill someone in self defense, if not it is murder.
Furthermore, they went to the clinic for fifteen minutes, neglecting the man who was obviously seriously injured. This means that his death was through negligence, and under the circumstance, his life could have been saved, but the family chooses not to call the ambulance, but just to send the wife to the clinic, neglecting the man lying there wounded. If they had sent him to the clinic together, or called the ambulance, his death could have been avoided.
What I have written above is to basically say that the family was not as blameless as one might think, and at the very least, the direct cause of the death of the man. Thus I think that the protest is wrong. They should be facing a murder charge as they did not act in self defense of their lives, and caused the death of a man.
I think that there are so many protests is that they think that the family is the victim, so they should not be punished. However, the failed to see it from the robbers point of view. What about the robbers family? Is it fair for them? Which parent would want to see their child dead? What more when the child did not deserve to die? The robber did not face a murder charge. He was also a victim. The family killed someone, and they must face the consequences. Even though it may seem unfair, but a persons life is sacred. And only when we as a society keep this ideal, even when it may seem unfair at times, can we still preserve our humanity. A death cannot be let of that easily.
Also, note that a murder charge does not equat to a death sentence. There is also a probability of them getting of on a lighter sentence, by pleading pardon for clemency, but they should be facing a murder charge.
In conclusion, I think that the family should be facing a murder charge. (In the present circumstances. If new facts come to light, it may change. Only based on this news article. My opinion only.)

1 comment:

  1. I do not agree with your point that the family should be facing a murder charge, because I believe that they are acting in self-defence. You have stated that the robber did not mean to kill but what about the knife he brought? The robber has injured. The article too has also said that the husband hit the robber with a pipe and the son tied him up, In normal cases, people will not die because of being hit by a pipe but in this case, the robber did, From this, I can come to my conclusion that the robber died because of other reasons, like his illness, not by the husband hitting him. Sure, the husband hitting him had done some damage to him but it is not enough for the robber to die. Hence I disagree with your point.