The teenage murderer, who was sentenced to 16 years in jail for killing his schoolmate with an axe at River Valley High School, just recently lost his appeal for a reduction in his imprisonment term in court.
The incident started way back on July 19, 2021, when he attacked and murdered another student, 13-year-old Ethan Hun Zhe Kai in a school toilet, shocking the world as the youngest offender. The murderer’s target was randomized by whoever entered the same rest area as him, before stopping other people from entering with tape. The murderer was 16 at the time, so his name cannot be revealed to the public.
Now, at the age of 19, this teen tries to appeal for a shorter jail term of 8 to 10 years. However, the Court of Appeal in Singapore denied the request. The court knew that this case was very logical, and he was aware of the nature and wrongfulness of what he did that day.
According to CNA, the teenager involved in the River Valley High School incident is suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD) at the time of the crime, showcasing a disturbing level of planning through self-taught and videos online, leading up to the attack. The idea of this plan also includes a suicide attempt, by killing an innocent victim to force the police to shoot him, indicating a troubling mindset and callous intention behind the tragic incident.
He was initially charged with murder, but the offender’s charge was downgraded to culpable homicide following a psychiatric evaluation that highlighted the impact of his mental condition on his capacity to discern right from wrong.
Despite experiencing depressive feelings and suicidal thoughts, his actions were not solely attributed to his mental health, as the court highlighted other contributing factors such as his consumption of violent content and reluctance to seek help.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justices Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li, understands the teenager’s chilling degree of premeditation and cold logic in the meticulous planning of the attack. Although recognizing the offender’s potential for rehabilitation, the court upheld the original 16-year sentence as a balance between accountability and mitigating circumstances.
Defense lawyers, Mr. Sunil Sudheesan and Ms. Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer, argued for a more lenient sentence citing the offender’s mental health condition, treatment efforts post-offense, and expressed remorse towards the victim’s family.
However, the court’s decision stays in its decision to uphold justice while adding to the complex interplay of mental health and criminal responsibility.