I REFER to the letters on crime and the law in The Straits Times of Dec 19. From these, one can surmise one thing: laymen like us put a high value on human life and safety, whereas the law occasionally values property more than lives, and, at times, does not acknowledge certain acts as being seizable despite obvious harm perceived by the public.

This divergence of opinion results in the impression that punishment meted out does not commensurate with the crime, or that the law does not fully protect the public interest.

Take the case of the drunk driver who caused the death of a pedestrian ('11 weeks' jail hardly an appropriate sentence'). According to Section 66 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276), any person who causes the death of another by driving recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. The law has capped the sentence at five years, less than what one may receive for burglary. To a layperson, it does not make sense ('Are burglars worse than drink drivers?').