RAPE CASE IN MALAYSIA
Introduction
Human beings interact through a complex mechanism guided by values, morality, ethics, and law. The diversity of human interactive systems provides overlapping interactive mechanisms between these principles. It is therefore important to understand the meanings, boundaries, and role of these principles within the domain of human interaction. Values are ideas we hold that give significance and meaning to our lives. They underpin our beliefs, influence the actions we take, decisions we make, and even the life we lead. It is important to understand values in order to acquire know on how to create realities about ourselves, and thus get insight about the personal realities of others. “The Value Theory defines values as “desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, which serves as guiding principles in people’s lives”. Morality is behaviors and beliefs about human decency, good/evil, right/wrong, and proper/improper. Morality entails what we ought to do, values, virtues, right and wrong, good and bad, and justice. Therefore, moral actions usually merit praise and rewards, while immoral actions are normally taken to merit blame and punishment. Ethics is the explicit, philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices. They are rules of personal behavior that are generally accepted by society. In nutshell, ethics are code of conduct within human society. There are two aspects to ethics: being able to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad; and committing to doing what is right and good. Law is the forcible set of rules that guides our conduct in society. According to Aiken (pp. 98), law is defined as “rules made by human beings to guide society and regulate human interactions, which are enforceable to promote peaceful and productive interactions”.Rules of conduct are considered very important, therefore are enforced through the government agencies such as court systems.
Body
In the case, where a 40-year-old man was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl and marrying her, in Malaysia, is full of conflicting moral issues. In this case, Riduan Masmud, the alleged rapist, has defended himself by claiming that the act was done under context of mutual consent, and that this is matter is acceptable under sharia law. Therefore, there is complexity in determining the context in which justice would be restored. From the moral perspective, many would solemnly condemn this act as being immoral and unethical. In light of this, Jainab Ahmad, Sabah’s Community Development and Consumer Affairs Minister have called upon the prosecution body to push the statutory rape charges against Riduan. However, the ambivalent nature of the marriage laws in Malaysia could pose serious challenge in making a ruling on this case. Malaysia is a nation that is dominated by Muslims. It has a dual system; either Sharia (Islamic) law or civil law can determine minimum age of marriage. This creates difficulty in defining minimum age of marriage. According to Sharia law, the minimum age for matrimony is 16 for girls and 18 for boys. But boys and girls can be allowed to marry at younger ages as long as they obtain Islamic courts’ consent. On the other hand, non-Muslims may marry from the age 18, with exception for girls, who are allowed to marry as early as 16.
The lack of unidirectional guidelines in Malaysian law on marriage creates ambiguity in marriage/rape cases. A number of factors influence ethics: values, morality, beliefs, and law. This implies that the accepted societal codes of conduct are multi-faceted principles that require a balanced, non-biased application. There are some elements of conflict between the law versus morality, the law versus beliefs and values. The law simply entails a set of rules designed by a particular society to provide code of conduct; they are enforceable through government agencies. While morality generally entails behaviors and beliefs that are perceived by society to be decent, right, and good. In this sense, application of the law may or may not meet the moral demands. For example, in the aforementioned case, it would moral justified for the court to charge Riduan with a rape case. But owing to the Islamic marriage law in Malaysia, the court may find it difficult to give an incriminating judgment on this case, thus undermining moral perceptions. Even though values influence ethic behaviors, values differ from one individual/state to another. There is variance between perceptions held by different individuals and states. This creates differences in how people make choices of their actions and the life they lead. The law provide for certain freedom and rights, which to some extent may undermine morality. In light of the case above, Riduan may enjoy some level of legal immunity, when he quotes certain provisions by the Malaysian law. He is not constrained by the law, but rather by moral perceptions, which are mere opinions of the people in society. Therefore, the court, in trying to respect the rights and values of Riduan, may overlook the moral perceptions.
Both ethics and morals are complex issues in the society. There are some conflicting elements pertaining to the perceptions by different opinions held by members of society. Different states/organizations have constituted certain rules and regulations, but with restrain from human freedom and rights. In this sense, it has become very difficult to strike a balance between law, morality, and ethics. The questions that are difficult to provide precise answers to are mostly plagued by moral and ethical perceptions. For instance, one would find it difficult to support abortion if he/she looks at it from the moral perspective. In one hand, morality and ethics are underpinned by cultural, biological, and religious concerns. On the other hand, the legal perspective gives a different view that may undermine the moral values that are tied to this issue, especially in nations such as U.S. This implies that both ethics and morals are mere perceptions that have been passed by words of mouth from one individual to another, or inculcated through societal practices; they are not documented as the state laws. Therefore, in reviewing cases such as Riduan’s, there are a number of fundamental principles that ought to be taken into consideration. Firstly, there is need to understand whether the legitimate interest begs morality, that is, should morality be considered in making a ruling on cases relating to social crimes?
The answers to this question can be provided by reviewing certain cases, where morality versus legitimate interest had formed the subject of determining judgments. In regard of this, some cases have been classified as “Cases Rejecting Morality as a basis, or Cases Accepting Morality as a basis”.
Cases rejecting morality as a basis
The case of United States Department of Agriculture Vs. Moreno in 1973 is an example of a case that did not regard morality as a basis. Others include Romer Vs. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas, Bowers V. Hardwick, among others. These cases stood against the expression of morality in legitimate government interest. They dismissed morality as a basis of providing guidelines for ruling.
Cases accepting morality as a basis
Previously, some court rulings have been pegged on morality as a basis of providing guiding principles. These include cases in the context of obscenity, sexual conduct, pornography, and abortion. These cases did not only appreciate the importance of morality in drawing guidelines for making a ruling, but also as state factor.
Secondly, the prosecuting body should consider whether there are damages that have occurred as a result of alleged act like rape. Rape cases are associated with sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, loss of blood, and psychological damages. The occurrence of such damages should warrant an incriminating ruling. But if such damages have not been determined, then the court should take a liberal position in a case. Thirdly, in every state, there is general provision for a “mutual consent” in the law. This implies that if an act occurs between individual through a mutual agreement, then it is advisable for the court to exercise restraint in making a ruling. The court should therefore seek for the opinions of the victim (s) of the act in making its guidelines for ruling. In the case of Riduan and the young girl, Riduan claims that the act he committed was done through a mutual consent. This would create complexity in making a ruling because this concept is enshrined in Malaysian law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, even though morals and ethics are fundamental guideline principles in society, their applications are subject to law. People hold different opinions regarding ethics and morality; they view both as values which guide behaviors of individuals in society. The members of society can easily circumvent these principles because they are mere perceptions. Nonetheless, state law is binding and enforceable by government agencies. They are properly defined documented, and aim at restoration of justice. Therefore, the provisions that have been stated in the law itself guide its application.
The case above, which involves Riduan and the young girl, entails morals and ethical issues. In one hand, it highlights moral decadence, where an old man, 40 years of age allegedly rapes a young girl of 13 years of age. He not only rapes the girl, but also marries her despite of her tender age. On the other hand, it shows that the supremeness of the law would outweigh moral and ethical concerns. Riduan claims that there is nothing wrong with his actions; that he did everything under the context of mutual consent, a thing that is granted by Malaysian law. In addition, minimum age of marriage is an ambiguous phrase. Both civil and Islamic laws do not have standard ages for marriage, but what existsisa mere confusion. The marriage is viewed as an institution, which is not exclusively, governed the state laws, but rather cultural laws. In regard of this, Riduan would find some ground to support his actions.
References
GARDNER, J. (2009, April 17). Law and Morality. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from users.ox.ac.uk: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/lawmoralityedited.pdf
Gluck, S. (2012). Effects of Rape: Psychological and Physical Effects of Rape. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from healthyplace.com: http://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/rape/effects-of-rape-psychological-and-physical-effects-of-rape/
Wehner, P. (2012, September 1). The Moral Complexity of Social Issues. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from commentarymagazine.com: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/09/moral-complexity-of-social-issues/
Gates, B. (2013). What Is Law? Retrieved August 7, 2013, from attorneygates.com: http://www.attorneygates.com/images/introlawnc.pdf
Gray, J. W. (2011, May 20). Ethical Realism: What is Morality? Retrieved August 7, 2013, from ethicalrealism.wordpress.com: http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/what-is-morality/
Highfield, M. (2013). Ethical Decisionmaking & Influencing Factors . Retrieved August 7, 2013, from csun.edu: http://www.csun.edu/~meh20426/303/6EthicsIntro.pdf
Piar, F. D. (2012). Morality as a Legitimate Government Interest. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from pennstatelawreview.org: http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/117/1/117%20Penn%20St.%20L.%20Rev.%20139.pdf
sbctc.edu. (2013). What are “Ethics”? Retrieved August 7, 2013, from sbctc.edu: http://www.sbctc.edu/public/trustees/what_are_ethics.pdf
Schwartz, H. S. (2007, October 5). BasicHuman Values: Theory,Methods, and Applications. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from segr-did2.fmag.unict.it: http://segr-did2.fmag.unict.it/Allegati/convegno%207-8-10-05/Schwartzpaper.pdf
Turner, M. M. (2004). Values and beliefs. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from mentoringforchange.co.uk: http://www.mentoringforchange.co.uk/pdf/CtC%20-%20Values.pdf
Voice of the Children. (2013, May 24). Child marriage in Malaysia, a child rights issue. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from girlsnotbrides.org: http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/tackling-child-marriage-in-malaysia-a-child-rights-activists-perspective/
Walter, E. W. (2009, April 29). Law vs. Moral Values. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from townhall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/04/29/law_vs_moral_values/page/full
