Death penalty in Thailand.

Hi,

We mentioned this a while ago and I am leaving other threads alone for people to post their condolences and respects to the young man and LMTU.

However, some disagreed with me on the issue of the death penalty, which I was making a point for just such as this and a number of others in Thailand recently.

Examples, the young German in the Bangkok Hotel room. The British girl attacked raped, murdered and then ditched in the sea, by the two fishermen. The young couple murdered by the policeman at the restaurant,after his amorous advances were rejected, the murders of the Russian girls at Jomtien,and the lists are growing.

I don't think it should be an automatic sentence, but in cases like these, and this young man, once the evidence is heard, and if it is beyond doubt, and proven to be a senseless killing, I'm all for it.

[Aunty]

I am a great supporter of the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for those found guilty of murder, or genocide.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

[elephantspike]

My primary disagreement with the death penalty is that it empowers the State (the guys who process your driver's license and collect your taxes and who perform other such bureaucratic chores).....to decide that you should die!

My primary disagreement with the death penalty is that it empowers the State (the guys who process your driver's license and collect your taxes and who perform other such bureaucratic chores).....to decide that you should die!

Elephantspike,

I take your point, but judges, such as in the UK, [with the exception of a few eccentric lunatics], are highly skilled, highly trained and intelligent professionals.

I would like a certain set of judges, specifically set aside to judge these type of cases.

ttom,

I knew you would be one of the first to come out on the opposing side. However, have these people to whom we are referring done exactly just that???violated the right to life

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.


Dear ttom,

It has certainly deterred Saddam Hussein and Co.!!!!

My primary disagreement with the death penalty is that it empowers the State (the guys who process your driver's license and collect your taxes and who perform other such bureaucratic chores).....to decide that you should die!

Elephantspike,

I take your point, but judges, such as in the UK, [with the exception of a few eccentric lunatics], are highly skilled, highly trained and intelligent professionals.

I would like a certain set of judges, specifically set aside to judge these type of cases.

ttom,

I knew you would be one of the first to come out on the opposing side. However, have these people to whom we are referring done exactly just that???violated the right to life



New Scotsman: Wednesday, 21 January, 2004, 14:53 : Gang appeal over sleeping judge

The Millennium Star was among the De Beers collection

Three men who plotted the biggest gem heist in UK history have begun an appeal, claiming the judge fell asleep during their trial.

Four men were convicted of conspiracy to rob after trying to steal ┬г200m of diamonds from London's Millennium Dome.

Lawyers say that Judge Michael Coombe may have missed vital evidence and say their clients' sentences and convictions should be reduced.

Judge Coombe admits falling asleep but denies snoring loudly, the court heard.

------------

DELETED

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.


Dear ttom,

It has certainly deterred Saddam Hussein and Co.!!!!



Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

I don't have any problem with the death penalty for crimes against humanity. I do however have a problem with dictatorships. I don't think Thailand would ever embrace a dictatorial leadership these days and therefor I can only assume that the death penalty is legally administered to the few who would genuinely deserve it.

Official information: www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm (http://www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm)

Of course, the 5-figured number of innocent people “sentenced to death” by exPM T. “shoot first ask later” policy are not included. The black squad or unit 999 where notorious for this “kind of job”.

Even the UN ordered Thailand to stop this policy immediately otherwise sanctions would follow immediately. Therefore officials didn’t stop the “proceedings” but took care that there are no witnesses anymore.

Due to press restrictions, this topic is not present in Thailand media.

[Aunty]

The death penalty is not about deterrence, it's about punishment. What is the appropriate punishment for murder? Whether or not the death penalty deters additional murders by others is irrelevant. The deterrence argument is a red herring advanced by those who are against the death penalty as some sort of ultimate arbiter or authority as to its worth. It is not.

If the deterrence argument is accepted then we might as well do away with prisons and trials and the courts altogether, as clearly they are an abject failure in deterring crime. But such a suggestion is of course utterly preposterous. So too is the claim that the death penalty should be banned as it fails to deter murder. It's about punishment; it's about punishing the murderer.

Official information: www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm (http://www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm)

Of course, the 5-figured number of innocent people тАЬsentenced to deathтАЭ by exPM T. тАЬshoot first ask laterтАЭ policy are not included. The black squad or unit 999 where notorious for this тАЬkind of jobтАЭ.

Even the UN ordered Thailand to stop this policy immediately otherwise sanctions would follow immediately. Therefore officials didnтАЩt stop the тАЬproceedingsтАЭ but took care that there are no witnesses anymore.

Due to press restrictions, this topic is not present in Thailand media.

ttom,

We are a world away with this comparison!

I am referring, and I am sure Aunty and others are, about the punishment to fit the crime awarded and handed out by a Court of Law, after all due procedures have been followed.

This post of yours refers to extra judicial killings.

Of course, I do not go along with hit squads handing their versions of justice.

Let's do away with schools, they kids don't learn anything!! No, and it would be a silly argument.

A burglar is sent to prison for theft, He may be an habitual criminal that will re offend in three or four years, at least, we have removed him from the streets for that period of time, where he cannot be re offending.

A cold blooded murderer, by giving the death penalty, certainly prevents him/her from re offending and the punishment fits the crime.

Regards to the judge in the jewel haul, I would remove him from his position and then other judges would learn, they too, are part of the legal system, and equally accountable.

You are pointing out a flaw in a judge, not the legal procedures and systems, and it really has nothing to do with the fairness and legality of a Death penalty in the case of murder.

Official information: www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm (http://www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm)

Of course, the 5-figured number of innocent people “sentenced to death” by exPM T. “shoot first ask later” policy are not included. The black squad or unit 999 where notorious for this “kind of job”.

Even the UN ordered Thailand to stop this policy immediately otherwise sanctions would follow immediately. Therefore officials didn’t stop the “proceedings” but took care that there are no witnesses anymore.

Due to press restrictions, this topic is not present in Thailand media.

ttom,

We are a world away with this comparison!



Kevin

You’re right. I shall not discuss this topic any further.

Next time we meet there is maybe a wee drum in your hands. If you’re lucky, there might be even some 20 years old Oban Malt left… Last time I’ve moved the bottle (a couple of month ago) I noticed that the level was somewhat lover than I remembered. I’ve questioned Supervisor about it but he convinced met that’s very “natural” since any good Whisky “vanishes” by time.

Now with the rainy season ahead, and all the water poring down I fear that this might have some effects on the stuff. I’ve mentioned this to Supervisor and he answered me “it just would be a shame”, smiled and went away.

Cheers ttom,

All the best.

I am on supervisors side though, it is quite normal at this time of year for the evaporation process to take place!!

It's amazing, it happens down here in Kalasin too.


Kevin.

My primary disagreement with the death penalty is that it empowers the State (the guys who process your driver's license and collect your taxes and who perform other such bureaucratic chores).....to decide that you should die!

Elephantspike,

I take your point, but judges, such as in the UK, [with the exception of a few eccentric lunatics], are highly skilled, highly trained and intelligent professionals.

I would like a certain set of judges, specifically set aside to judge these type of cases.

... [/b]

If I were you, Mr. Kquill, I would be a little less enthusiastic about the "highly skilled, highly trained and intelligent professionals".

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... nced_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-18-judge-sentenced_x.htm)

Of course, you will say, he is one of the "eccentric lunatics" you have mentioned. The bottom line is: How do you ensure that the judge who is presiding over the (capital punishment) case will actually listen to the arguments in court rather than masturbate with the help of a penis pump?

Professor

It's something of a surprise to see a Professor generalising from a single case. I can't imagine which branch of philosophy has such a weak epistemology. What is even more surprising is that he appears to imagine that Oklahoma is in one of the UK's jurisdictions. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Aunty]

It's something of a surprise to see a Professor generalising from a single case.........

Believe me, he ain't no Professor!

My primary disagreement with the death penalty is that it empowers the State (the guys who process your driver's license and collect your taxes and who perform other such bureaucratic chores).....to decide that you should die!

Elephantspike,

I take your point, but judges, such as in the UK, [with the exception of a few eccentric lunatics], are highly skilled, highly trained and intelligent professionals.

I would like a certain set of judges, specifically set aside to judge these type of cases.

... [/b]

If I were you, Mr. Kquill, I would be a little less enthusiastic about the "highly skilled, highly trained and intelligent professionals".

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... nced_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-18-judge-sentenced_x.htm)

Of course, you will say, he is one of the "eccentric lunatics" you have mentioned. The bottom line is: How do you ensure that the judge who is presiding over the (capital punishment) case will actually listen to the arguments in court rather than masturbate with the help of a penis pump?

Professor


Professor,

I will indeed refer to him as an eccentric lunatic, how else could you describe that kind of behaviour!

This isolated case, as in the case of the UK judge, who fell asleep, should not go unpunished, and from what I have seen it hasn't!!

They have just given him four years without the possibility of parole.

Furthermore, there are a large number of safeguards and appeal procedures nowadays designed to protect the rights of a defendent, not to mention the jury systems etc etc.

We can and should expect the highest standards from people in the highest public office.

That goes without saying.

If you take the number of cases in the Courts in a Country multiply that by the number of judges involved, I am sure you will find the problems minute, although no system is 100% flawless.

I was referring, and still am, to cases of blatent, senseless crimes of murder, like the ones I mentioned in the original post, for which there can never be an excuse.

Professor,

I will indeed refer to him as an eccentric lunatic, how else could you describe that kind of behaviour!
This isolated case, as in the case of the UK judge, who fell asleep, should not go unpunished, and from what I have seen it hasn't!!
They have just given him four years without the possibility of parole.
Furthermore, there are a large number of safeguards and appeal procedures nowadays designed to protect the rights of a defendent, not to mention the jury systems etc etc.
We can and should expect the highest standards from people in the highest public office.
That goes without saying.
If you take the number of cases in the Courts in a Country multiply that by the number of judges involved, I am sure you will find the problems minute, although no system is 100% flawless.
I was referring, and still am, to cases of blatent, senseless crimes of murder, like the ones I mentioned in the original post, for which there can never be an excuse.

Mr. Kquill:

You have just mentioned the one and only point that really matters here: No system in the world - I repeat: no system - is 100 % flawless. Consequently, you cannot defend capital punishment because you have always the residual risk to execute an innocent person. Would you assert that the unquestionable possibility of killing an innocent person still justifies the imposition of the death sentence? Mr. ttom referred to this point already, he is absolutely right.

Mr. 555 and Aunty:

Your comments are appreciated, but totally unfounded. Obviously, you have never heard of "inductive reasoning". I recommend you visit an introductory course dealing with basic issues and methods in philosophy before you talk at large.

Professor

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

In reality it does little to stop dreadful crimes..most of which are on-the-spur or crimes of passion , Most murders are done by someone who know the victim and it involves some sort of family or friendship feud that is not likely to come up again (well especially if someone is dead !)

What I am trying to say is that every study into the death penalty where the excuse given to execute people is to prevent crime.shows that it does not. work.

Then the death penalty is all about revenge...and you kmow all the things the Bible and old sayings say about revenge...they are true.

I also very much doubt that LMTU would want something terrible like the death penalty to be given to the killers of his friend

[allieb]

The death penalty is not a deterrent as Aunty pointed out but a punishment. Proved without a Shadow of a doubt case by case death for murder is OK with me. The deterrent is how they do it here where I live. The murderer is sentenced to death and left in prison for a 3 year cooling off period after which the victims family can waive the death penalty or insist on it.

Then the murderer is taken out into a town square and his crime is read out. The victims family are then asked again if they will waive the death penalty (they must attend the execution). Only on the nod to continue will the murderer be beheaded in front of all to see.

Now tell me that that is not a deterrent I can assure you that there are very few murders and those that happen are usually never premeditated. A few public executions of this kind in Thailand starting with the fishermen who murdered the British girl would be deterrent to all onlookers. And those who didn't have the stomach to watch but heard about it on TV.

And anyway who has to pay for keeping these murdering scum in prison? Decent law abiding citizens.

[Marsilius]

And I for one am quite prepared to pay that monetary cost if it means that no-one is killed in my name.

Dear "Professor",

I have no problems with inductive reasoning. It is fine for theorising why things may happen or may have happened. However, you seemed to assert, deductively that the judiciary could be discounted because of the actions of a couple of miscreants. It would be kindness to describe that as a "weak" assertion.

BTW Congratulations on the improvement in your English.

It's something of a surprise to see a Professor generalising from a single case.You obviously haven't been reading his other posts. One wonders who it is who's really masturbating with the help of a penis pump :idea:

Those executed tend to be the poor who cannot afford good lawyers. In the USA they are predominantly black. Those responsible for the deaths of 750,000 Iraqis will spend the rest of their lives in luxury.

Dear "Professor",

I have no problems with inductive reasoning. It is fine for theorising why things may happen or may have happened. However, you seemed to assert, deductively that the judiciary could be discounted because of the actions of a couple of miscreants. It would be kindness to describe that as a "weak" assertion.

Mr. Triple Five:

You might have misunderstood my postings. I have stated that capital punishment is wrong. The reason is that no system in the world is 100 % flawless (Mr. Kquill agreed on this point). The imminent danger to execute an innocent person - resulting from the system┬┤s fallibility - can never justify the death penalty, under no circumstances. Now, the cretin of a judge in Oklahoma supports my argument that the judicial system is not flawless, because people (judges) make mistakes. It is as simple as that. I would not describe this rationality as "weak". Almost all civilized countries have abolished capital punishment for the reason just stated.

Prof.

[Smiles]

" ... Consequently you cannot defend capital punishment because you have always the residual risk to execute an innocent person ... "
Collateral damage? (Good enough for .... )

Cheers ...

It's something of a surprise to see a Professor generalising from a single case.You obviously haven't been reading his other posts. One wonders who it is who's really masturbating with the help of a penis pump :idea:

Mr. Homintern,

it is noted for the record that you belong to the wanna-be-funny department of this board (together with Aunty and a couple of other brats). It seems that no joke is silly enough for you to post. If you think you can provoke me by this ridiculous behavior, forget about it. I told you before that I have handled buffoons like you for many years.

Prof.

I know only this. If I am murdered I want the bastard who did the dirty deed DEAD. I'd want revenge for my own murder so deterrents don't come into the equation.

[Bob]

While I personally don't support the death penalty (for personal moral reasons which others may not accept), I can see the right of a society to pass laws authorizing it in certain egregious murder cases.

The so-called Professor simply states it's "wrong" but I don't have a clue what he means by that. It's "wrong" (morally or otherwise?) in his opinion? And to condemn use of it based on one or two bad cases is superb thinking (not).
Another poster suggests it shouldn't be used because there all all types of killings (acts in the heat of passion or gross recklessness) that wouldn't justify its use. In the US states that allow the death penalty, it's limited to use in certain crimes (and second degree murder or manslaughter or not two of those) involved with premeditated murder, contract killing, and in some "felony-murders." Some of you might also be surprised to learn that juries typically decide this penalty (in a phase separate from the trial) and then its reviewed by the trial judge and at least one appellate panel (often many).

The US system is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....and not beyond any doubt. If one operated any legal system (or anything) on a basis of simply any doubt no matter how remote, the system wouldn't work (nor would you ever walk across the street).

In spite of reading the news reports of the killing involving Earwig's friend, we hardly are in a position to determine the facts here or to fairly say whether the death penalty should or shouldn't apply. But, based on what's been reported (which, of course, may not be the accurate or complete story), there appears to be substantial evidence of a clear intent to kill (you don't drive somewhere to get a gun and then later pull the trigger while pointing it at somebody else's head without the rather specific intent) and at least a significant amount of time involving premeditation. It wasn't a killing done within a few minutes of getting angry and certainly there doesn't appear to be any evidence reported of improper action or aggression by the victim. Sounds to me that, presuming the death penalty might apply, there's enough here to say that a proper jury or court ought to be allowed to make that decision.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

as there is so little else to do in Saudi Arabia, other countries don't have the need to provide entertainment in the form of public executions-highly exciting as they may be ( do you take your knitting ?)

It's odd though that a person who is so in awe of the Saudi's brutal methods should be fond of Thailand's freewheeling attitudes toward sex. Attending a Go Go Bar and "offing" a boy would probably get you a public stoning in downtown Ryhad which I believe is now done with great efficiency by simply dumping a truck load of rubble on the unfortunate criminal..and most likely a truck courtesy of the Bin Laden Corporation.:scratch:

[Marsilius]

From Bob (above): "The US system is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....and not beyond any doubt. If one operated any legal system (or anything) on a basis of simply any doubt no matter how remote, the system wouldn't work (nor would you ever walk across the street)."

Absolutely right! There will never be 100% certainty in legal systems (even when a conviction is based on a "confession", we all know that it can have been wrung out of suspects by violence or intimidation - or even volunteered by mentally incapable suspects). And you are right, Bob, that, in spite of the flaws, we do stll nevertheless need such legal systems if society is to function.

But, if there is no death penalty, you at least have the means of partially making restitution for any mistakes that later come to light. If you have the death penalty, though, there is nothing by then that you can do to recompense its innocent victims.

The killer was obviously anti -gay so sending him to spend the rest of his life in The Bangkok Hilton seems like a fitting ending for him. We'll see how long he stays anti gay in there. With his good looks there will be a bidding war over who gets him first and regularly.

Im not in the give them a quick and painless exit club.

I think they should suffer by being locked up the rest of their lives or working and supporting the victims family financially.

The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent.
Most murders fall into two categories, spur of the moment or premeditated.
Those who act on тАШspur of the momentтАЩ donтАЩt stop or have time to think of the consequences, the others think they are clever enough to get away with it.

[fedssocr]

I think making them spend the rest of their natural lives in prison is a much worse punishment for the perps than ending their lives. While revenge might make some people feel better in the short term, it certainly doesn't do much to ease the long-term pain of losing a loved one.