Prerequisite reading:
National bowler escapes jail term
Source.
The facts of the case has been beaten out online enough as it is. I shall not seek to repeat them. However, I will share by observations: As usual, the average Malaysian cannot understand the difference between conviction and sentencing.
Let me start off by saying I do not condone rape, and nothing in the judgement of the case remotely indicates that the courts have deviated from this principle. However, much of the online commentary seems to suggest that most people are not aware of the difference between rape (as in a crime of violence against women) and statutory rape (where the only crime really is mistake of fact).
Some have even gone so far as to suggest that he got away scot-free, a blatant disregarded for the reported facts. He pleaded guilty at the first instance, and was sentenced by the Court of Appeal: sentenced to a good behaviour on a bond of RM25,000 for five years with one surety, which was the original sentence by the Sessions Court.
It was the High Court, on appeal, that gave him 5 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court sentence and reinstated the Sessions Court sentence.
It may surprise people, but there is no mandatory sentence for rape, much less statutory rape. Unlike cases of drug trafficking, the sitting judge has discretion in sentencing in rape cases.
Personally too much emphasis has been placed on the quote of "A bright future" by the judges (it was three bench sitting of Tan Sri Raus Md Sharif, Datuk K. N. Segara and Datuk Azhar Ma'ah). Some online commentary have suggsted that "A bright future" means Noor Afizal will not have a problem in the future.
"A bright future" does not mean a future without any issues. Just ask Bob Ashford what a
50 year old criminal conviction has
done for this promotion prospects.
Without the written judgement it is hard to fully understand the reasons for mitigation by the court, but media reports seem to suggest the "public interest" excuse (the word "excuse" here is used in the context of the legal definition of establishing liability, not the general meaning to escape from responsibility) was used as the point of appeal.
He does have a few things going for him for the appeal:
1) He pleaded guilty at the first instance, instead of going for a full trial.
2) The charge is statutory rape, not rape, as in a crime of violence against women. For all we know she threw herself at him and asked him to ram her so she could bear his child.
3) It is his (known) first offense.
4) He is a "public figure" and has positively contributed to the nation in the past.
In any case, he will have a criminal conviction on his record for the rest of his life. Try living with a criminal record at the age of 22. Try getting a housing loan from the banks. Applying for a visa to most countries. Getting police clearance.
Whether the (reduced) sentence is proportional to the crime, clearly society has decided it is not.
Regardless of how a judge decides on the punishment, it is never enough for society. Should we then have the mandatory death penalty for everything?