SHOULD transgressions committed during one's teenage years count when the same mistakes are repeated in adulthood?

Going by what a district judge said about a drug addict who abused drugs in his youth, the answer is no. That sounded fair, given that it is generally accepted that the sins committed in one's youth should be forgiven, if not forgotten. A young person under 16 should not be treated like an adult who knows full well the consequences of his actions.

District Judge Sarjit Singh, in making the ruling, had in fact broken with previous judges, who had sentenced 19 people who had fallen foul of drug laws in their youth as repeat offenders in adult court.

The judge sentenced drug offender Muhammad Noor Indra Hamzah to a three-year jail term with no caning, instead of the enhanced minimum penalty of five years and three strokes of the cane for those with two previous convictions.

Noor's case forced the prosecution to take the issue before the High Court for a ruling to bind the lower courts.

In essence, the question is whether the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) should take precedence over the Children and Young Persons' Act (CYPA).

Justice Lee Seiu Kin, in effect, ruled that the MDA, which has mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, trumps the CYPA - unless the juvenile had been put on probation or discharged with conditions.

The CYPA 'has no effect on any provision in any Act that makes provision for a different penalty in respect of a second or subsequent offence'.

It also means that similar provisions in any other laws would also take such convictions into account.

Given that it was a High Court ruling, it would be binding on future cases in subordinate courts until it is changed by a Court of Appeal. In this case, however, because Justice Lee did not revise Noor's jail term, he saw no reason to grant the defence lawyers leave to go to the Court of Appeal to obtain further clarification.

The prosecution agreed, arguing that with so many new laws introduced, people cannot be running to the apex court for interpretations without a specific case in hand.

At issue here is not how a provision in a piece of legislation should be understood, but whether Singapore's deterrent drug and penal laws for adults run counter to the rehabilitation aims of the CYPA.

National University of Singapore Associate Professor Chong Thian Choy argues that the law's approach towards juvenile offenders should be 'to give them a second chance, not to stigmatise them, and to work towards their rehabilitation'.

'Juveniles may commit offences on the spur of the moment and may have been led astray. To adopt a harsh approach would be wrong. That is how the CYPA is conceived.

'On the other hand, the approach of the criminal law for those over 16 years is that they should know better. It is particularly harsh for offences under the MDA, given Singapore's tough stance towards drug abuse.'

The move to deal with juvenile drug abusers under the CYPA may have begun decades ago by default.

First-time addicts were detained in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs), but juveniles were not treated likewise.

Understandably so, because the DRCs were meant to contain adults, and a juvenile equivalent was absent when mass detention of drug addicts began in 1977.

Today, the Central Narcotics Bureau assesses the facts and circumstances of each juvenile case before deciding whether to place the offender under CNB supervision, or to charge the person in Juvenile Court.

It would appear the Juvenile Court is the lynchpin here: If the judge orders probation for a drug abuser, he will be treated as a first-timer if he reverts to the habit later as an adult. But if the judge decides to send the abuser to a home, the adult rules would apply if he were to be charged for the same offence as an adult.

But troubled children are sent to homes for several reasons, including not having a proper home environment. This is done after careful assessment by the courts, not necessarily because the child deserved to be 'interned'.

Some may point to the example of Britain, which changed its equivalent of the CYPA laws in 1997 to allow the courts to take account of Juvenile Court convictions for the purposes of sentencing adults.

But it is worth bearing in mind that the British system does not require mandatory caning and five-year jail terms for repeat drug offenders.

The Malaysian courts, which can impose sanctions identical to the Singaporean courts, have ruled that juvenile convictions are not to be registered - 'to protect a juvenile from being treated like an ordinary criminal'.

The issue will be settled in Singapore when the next case surfaces and reaches the apex court, said Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, who failed in his attempt to have the Noor Indra case heard.

But Professor Chong suggests this is an issue where Parliament should step in to clarify the law and decide if juvenile offenders should be given a 'second chance'.

'A drug offence committed when they were juveniles should not count as a prior 'conviction' at all should they be subsequently convicted by an adult court for another drug offence,' Prof Chong argues. 'This is already the situation for juveniles who have been granted probation, and it should apply to other juveniles as well.'

Lawyers The Straits Times spoke were inclined towards a similar view.

Senior lawyer N. Sreenivasan said: 'Between the CYPA and the MDA, I prefer the CYPA position. The mistakes that young people make should not come to haunt them when they are adults.'