Sentencing Discretion for Intellectually-disabled Offenders

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Minister will consider reviewing the Criminal Procedure Code to (i) provide the Courts with sentencing discretion for offences mandating imprisonment and caning where the offender is intellectually disabled, and (ii) expand the sentencing options for intellectually disabled offenders, such as mandatory treatment orders.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): We will study the issue. There are a number of considerations that we will need to balance.

First, intellectual disability occurs along a wide spectrum of severity. Persons with severe intellectual disability to the extent that they are incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the act they had committed, are acquitted. However, in other cases, intellectual disability may not negate the culpability of the offender.

Second, we will need to take into account other sentencing considerations. Offences which attract mandatory imprisonment and caning are generally serious and involve violence, such as robbery and aggravated rape. Such offences cause great distress to victims and threaten public safety. As such, punishment, deterrence and public protection are key considerations in sentencing for such offences.

As for Mr Louis Ng's second question, mandatory treatment orders (MTOs) are imposed when an offender is suffering from a mental illness which is treatable and which contributed to his offence. However, psychiatric assessments of offenders have found that those with merely intellectual disability are unsuitable for MTOs as their conditions were not assessed to be treatable.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I just check the timeline for the review? And two, I understand that, currently, programmes under the Reformative Training (RT) regimes have already been modified for the intellectually disabled inmates. But I think the limiting factor is the prison officer's time as well as resource constraint. So, while we are undergoing this review, will the Singapore Prison Service consider providing more resources to the RT officers so that they can modify these programmes for the inmates who are currently in there with intellectual disability?

Mr Amrin Amin: We will conclude the review in good time. Generally, the prison service takes extra precautions to manage inmates who are diagnosed with intellectual disability. Those with mental illnesses and who require treatment are currently housed separately at the psychiatric housing unit. And those who are able to assimilate with the mainstream population and are housed with them, they generally undergo the same rehabilitation programmes like other inmates. However, prison staff will monitor them closely to pick up any incidents of bullying or difficulties in adjustment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. But the concern really is that they are saying they do not have enough time and resources. So, I am just wondering whether on the Ministry of Home Affairs' side we can pump in more resources so that the RT officers can have time to modify programmes for the intellectually disabled.

Mr Amrin Amin: I think the time and resources issue will be considered as part of the general review and we will certainly be keen to ensure that our inmates get the proper support to help with their rehabilitation process.