To reply to your analogy, the question of whether shop A or shop B has a "fairer" price for the Mars bar has an answer that is not affected by which stop I patronize. It may be stupid to go to shop B and proceed to complain about the Mars bar being overpriced, but that is entirely unrelated to whether $1.00 or $1.50 is a more reasonable price.
It doesn't matter does it? If you are used to $1 being the more reasonable price, you'll find any price that isn't $1 unreasonable. This is precisely the point I'm trying to make. Don't project your standards on a different country and go "oh wow, how barbaric". That's ethnocentrism through and through.
Similarly, it may be stupid to go to Singapore and commit a crime with the knowledge that, if caught, punishment that you consider immoral or excessive will be delivered. Nevertheless, that does not negate assertions that the punishment is immoral or excessive. Your argument is that personal stupidity, via some mysterious process, invalidates moral or logical reasoning, which is nonsensical.
Lmfao. You talk about morality as though it is some fixed, unchangeable concept. Wonder how that would have worked considering almost all of us deserve to die by Biblical moral standards.
I don't really think you understand what a "legal outcome" is, because legal systems presuppose some sort of moral system and the assumption implicit in the use of caning is that the moral goodness of improving society via physical punishment is greater than the moral badness of caning (whatever those two quantities should be).
Apart from your assumption that morality is a fixed concept in terms of both time period and culture, I'd like to point out that while this is good description of how law is thought out from a philosophical point of view, this isn't the modern process at all. The truth is a group of people who may or may not best represent the interests of the people get into a room and argue about what rules should be implemented and what shouldn't. Then bam, laws are formed. No thought goes into moral goodness or moral badness, but rather what each individual in that room are comfortable with saying they support taking into consideration the preferences and leanings of the people who voted them into power.
Well, that's the tldr anyway.