我用google翻譯過後仍看不明白,有誰可以幫忙翻譯一段英文嗎,thx!
The observation I wish to make at this point is that, for better or for worse, moral discourse in Singapore does not feature very prominently in official decision making in the context of criminal justice. One may attribute it to “asian values”, to the immigrant mentality of Singaporeans, or to official down-playing of moral discourse. A rigid cost-benefit analysis is applied to every proposed measure. If the cost of effective crime prevention is the accidental punishment of a few innocent persons, or the inordinate punishment of admittedly guilty persons, that price must be paid. Nothing is wrong in itself. It is no wonder that official justifications of Singapore’s criminal justice system appeal to Packer’s “Crime control” model – indeed, although Packer meant that model to be merely descriptive, Singapore has made it prescriptive. In short, the judicial role is minimised, either because of distrust, or because of inefficiency, and the executive or administrative role of police and prosecutor is maximised.
The underlying theme of Singapore’s’ difference is not deliberate governmental repression, it is a stark utilitarian calculus. One aspect of this is the willingness to trade-in (what others might see as) respect for “human rights” for better crime control, expensive, time-consuming trial processes for the efficiency of administrative decisions. Utilitarian calculations cut both ways. There is also a cost to departures from accepted norms of criminal justice.