Thread by @_Alfieee

I think one of the saddest thing to emerge from the university Peeping Tom saga is the lack of awareness many people have of how justice works.

I'll explain below:

One of the strongest themes to emerge from the saga (and one of the things that caught my attention) was how many people sought to compare the current case with past cases and ask -

"Why let off so lightly?"

This, sadly, stems from not knowing fully how legal cases (and to some extent prosecutorial agencies) work.

While the legal system is largely a precedent-based system (i.e. there are existing cases/examples to guide), one very important point is always made:

Every case has to stand on its OWN facts.

As someone who formerly covered court cases, I used to find myself too, wondering why punishments for seemingly similar crimes varied.

Then I learnt that it really depended on the facts of the case.

Now the police had earlier today put out a statement to talk about why it arrived at what it arrived at (conditional warning).

I think that is instructive, but I think the unfortunate timing (when public outrage is boiling over) means all this goodwill be shouted down.

Was there a better way (and timing) this could have been done? Perhaps, but from the looks of it, there isn't anything that the prosecutorial agencies can do to appease public anger.

Also, a lot of the anger I think comes from not knowing the full facts set out.

I find it most disheartening when I see netizens (still!) making these comparisons against cases whose facts are wildly in contrast to the current one.

Yes, we should mete out justice where needed, but justice has to be tempered with fairness.

Is a 12-month conditional warning "fair" then? Most of the angry netizens will argue it isn't, and to some extent, it is tempting to agree.

But one needs to remember that you need to judge the facts of the case. What are the (objective) facts of this case?

Again, I feel what would have really helped would be for a third-party (prosecuting agency or the university) to set the facts properly on the onset.

What we hear of now is what the victim has alleged. It might be true, but is it the full picture?