Some readers may not recall the saga of Michael Fay in 1993, the juvenile delinquent who while living in Singapore, was ordered caned by a court for his transgressions. The incident created a firestorm in the United States among those who argued that the caning was a violation of human rights, excessive, cruel and/or unusual punishment in the extreme, and unwarranted by virtue of the nature of his crimes (vandalism). Moreover, his mother and others argued, since Fay was diagnosed with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder, he was not responsible for his actions.
Naturally, Singapore did not much appreciate US interference with its legal system, arguing logically, that individuals who live within the borders of their (or any foreign) country must abide national laws and standards of behavior. To their credit, Singapore applies a single standard to all individuals, citizen, and resident alike. Where I was personally disappointed was when Singapore reduced the number of whacks (for the lack of a better word) to which Fay would ordinarily be entitled.
Once whacked, Michael Fay returned to the United States to live with his father. A year later, Fay suffered extensive burns to his hands and face after an incident of sniffing butane and having claimed that sniffing butane allowed him to forget his horrible experience in Singapore, the court ordered mandatory rehabilitation. Two years after that, in 1996, Florida police officials cited Fay for careless driving, reckless driving, not reporting an accident, and driving a motor vehicle with an open container of alcohol. Two years after that, Fay was arrested by Florida authorities for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
Aside from the fact that I take great issue with the argument that persons with ADHD or its adult equivalent are somehow not responsible for their conduct, it would appear that Singapore was correct all along. Neither Fay’s parents, nor the U. S. government maintained the moral high ground in this case. The interests of Mr. Fay would be better served had his mother and stepfather kept him in Singapore to face his punishment. It would have forced Michael to either change his behavior, or face additional whacks.
I don’t know what has happened to Mr. Fay in the past ten years; I don’t really care. But it does seem to me that we are willing to put up with miscreants who drive vehicles in a reckless and wanton manner, subjecting our citizens to death or serious injury, but we are not willing to accept the notion that stern (progressive) punishments may actually save innocent lives.
According to our Justice Department, 1.75 million juveniles (under the age of 18) were arrested in 1990; more than 1.5 million juveniles are arrested annually, 34,000 are arrested for aggravated assault, and 2,000 for murder. In 1990, there were 30 juvenile killers on Death Row in the United States. My question is, why are these statistics acceptable to our citizens, and caning is not? It occurs to me that if Americans are willing to accept the unacceptable, if they continue making excuses for delinquent behavior among our adolescent population, juvenile and adult crime will only get worse.
What is your point of view?
Once whacked, Michael Fay returned to the United States to live with his father. A year later, Fay suffered extensive burns to his hands and face after an incident of sniffing butane and having claimed that sniffing butane allowed him to forget his horrible experience in Singapore, the court ordered mandatory rehabilitation. Two years after that, in 1996, Florida police officials cited Fay for careless driving, reckless driving, not reporting an accident, and driving a motor vehicle with an open container of alcohol. Two years after that, Fay was arrested by Florida authorities for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
Aside from the fact that I take great issue with the argument that persons with ADHD or its adult equivalent are somehow not responsible for their conduct, it would appear that Singapore was correct all along. Neither Fay’s parents, nor the U. S. government maintained the moral high ground in this case. The interests of Mr. Fay would be better served had his mother and stepfather kept him in Singapore to face his punishment. It would have forced Michael to either change his behavior, or face additional whacks.
I don’t know what has happened to Mr. Fay in the past ten years; I don’t really care. But it does seem to me that we are willing to put up with miscreants who drive vehicles in a reckless and wanton manner, subjecting our citizens to death or serious injury, but we are not willing to accept the notion that stern (progressive) punishments may actually save innocent lives.
According to our Justice Department, 1.75 million juveniles (under the age of 18) were arrested in 1990; more than 1.5 million juveniles are arrested annually, 34,000 are arrested for aggravated assault, and 2,000 for murder. In 1990, there were 30 juvenile killers on Death Row in the United States. My question is, why are these statistics acceptable to our citizens, and caning is not? It occurs to me that if Americans are willing to accept the unacceptable, if they continue making excuses for delinquent behavior among our adolescent population, juvenile and adult crime will only get worse.
What is your point of view?
|