SINGAPORE, Aug 1 — Lawyers said that the rehabilitative programme undertaken by a boy who flung a community cat from a block of public flats was the best approach, but several animal welfare groups were concerned whether such a move is enough to deter young offenders from abusing animals again.
The animal groups also urged the authorities to continue providing support and guidance for the child even after the programme is over, as a way to prevent the child from repeating such actions.
They were speaking to TODAY after the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) announced last Friday (July 28) that the 10-year-old boy was placed on a "diversionary programme" to educate him about animal welfare. AVS also gave him a stern warning.
AVS said that it did so after consulting with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, having taken into account the boy’s age and psychiatric assessment.
The boy was caught after a video on Facebook last December showed him following the cat out of a lift, before picking it up and throwing it over a ledge. The video post stated that the cat, named Panther, was thrown off the 22nd floor of Block 186 Boon Lay Avenue and later died of its injuries.
AVS said: “Through the programme, he learned about animal welfare, laws protecting animal health and welfare in Singapore, the needs and behaviour of cats, living with cats in the community, and responsible pet ownership.”
The boy was not named.
TODAY has reached out to AVS for more information about the programme.
Since the announcement, some people reacted online by describing such a programme and warning as a slap on the wrist for the boy, urging the authorities to impose stiffer penalties.
Children aged between 10 and 12 cannot be charged if they do not have “sufficient maturity of understanding” to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct, Section 83 of the Penal Code states.
When asked about the measures taken by AVS, lawyers told TODAY that it may not always be a good idea to bring the full force of the law down on every such offender.
Ng Yuan Siang, a lawyer at Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, said: “The criminal process is a deeply distressing one for adults, let alone youthful offenders, or young children like in the present case."
There is also a risk that harsh punishment might not address the reasons they committed the offences, and instead lead to an opposite effect of him reoffending, he added.
This is because harsh punishments may end up hardening young offenders, especially when considering the potentially bad influence in a prison or detention environment.
However, animal welfare groups said that it is important to have sustained follow-up action after the programme to prevent young persons from committing the same abuse again.
Anbarasi Boopal, co-chief executive officer of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, said: “While we understand that the law may not allow prosecution of a young person who is 10 years old, we hope that there is sustained follow-up with the boy and his environment in the long run.”
What lawyers say
Lawyers interviewed said that the rehabilitative approach is needed especially since the boy could not be charged under the law due to his age and psychiatric assessment.
AVS had said that a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health found that the boy lacked sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of his actions.
James Gomez Jovian Messiah, an associate at Edmond Pereira Law Corporation, said that something still needs to be done since the incident has generated a large public outcry.
Therefore, placing the boy on the programme was the “best way to go about it”, he said.
“It could simply be that the boy was placed on this programme as he cannot be charged. There’s no other way of balancing public interest against harsher prosecutorial action.”
On whether there should be penalties such as fines or jail time to deter this kind of abuse, Mr Mark Yeo, associate director of Kalco Law LLC, said that the first choice should always be to try to rehabilitate and educate the child.
This is because rehabilitation is already the dominant sentencing principle when it comes to youth offenders and applies more strongly for even younger offenders.
He added that putting the boy through the criminal justice system might not achieve the desired outcomes. Instead, doing so might even lead to stigma and lead him towards more criminal activity in the future.
“To try and nip the issue in the bud should always be the first port of call when dealing with child offenders, and so my view is that this was the right approach to take,” Mr Yeo said.
Such a rehabilitative approach also applies to cases beyond those involving animal abuse by minors, the lawyers said.
For example, first-time offenders between 16 and 21 years old could be sentenced to probation as an alternative to penal or corrective penalties. Penal penalties would mean that offenders will be institutionalised in prison or a juvenile home.
Probation does not result in a recorded criminal conviction and allows young offenders to continue with their education or employment while serving their sentences.
Adrian Wee, managing partner of Lighthouse Law LLC, said that probation is often considered during sentencing in lieu of fines or imprisonment for cases involving young offenders.
“Community-based sentences are also meted out for offenders, including adult offenders in appropriate cases.”
On whether restorative justice would be useful in the present case, Ng agreed, though he said that it is generally not a big feature in Singapore law except where juvenile offenders are concerned.
Restorative justice involves measures that allow the offenders to restore the harm caused to the parties involved.
Ng noted that the way AVS conducted the diversionary programme has some features of restorative justice.
For instance, the boy had wanted to convey his remorse and apology to the cat's caregivers, which is a step that is often associated with restorative justice.
"The boy's actions would clearly have caused a lot of anguish to the cat's caregivers (who are likely also the boy's neighbours), and I think taking a restorative approach gives the parties directly affected by the offence the chance to reconcile and heal from it," Ng added.
What animal groups say
Animal welfare groups approached by TODAY acknowledged that the boy's age required a rehabilitative approach for youth animal abusers, but they also said that there is a need for post-programme follow-ups to ensure that the child does not repeat such actions again.
Aarthi Sankar, executive director of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), noted the complexity of the situation given the offender’s young age and the tragic nature of the cat’s death.
For example, there could be regular follow-ups involving both the child and his parents on a quarterly basis to ensure that there is a support system in place for his rehabilitation.
She added that collaborative efforts between the school, family and the authorities are essential in having a comprehensive approach.
“Continued support and guidance are pivotal in preventing youth from repeating such actions," Ms Aarthi said.
“While the current programme offers a positive step in supporting the offender, we strongly advocate for the inclusion of post-programme follow-ups.”
She said that SPCA has been actively conducting diversionary programmes for youth offenders since 2017.
“These programmes incorporate hands-on guided interactions, fostering a deeper understanding of why certain behaviours are wrong and encouraging the development of empathy towards others, including animals,” she added.
Christine Bernadette, co-founder of Causes for Animals Singapore, a non-profit animal welfare organisation, said that besides educating the child, the authorities could invest more manpower into preventing animal abuse.
“More can be done for community animals by protecting them with surveillance and proper timely investigation of cases by the National Parks Board to ensure potential perpetrators are deterred from acting,” she added. — Reuters
