The longest-serving British prisoner overseas has returned to the UK after serving 17 years in Thai jails - despite maintaining his innocence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lanc ... 662065.stm
Printable View
The longest-serving British prisoner overseas has returned to the UK after serving 17 years in Thai jails - despite maintaining his innocence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lanc ... 662065.stm
If this was a misscariage of justice then all i can say is what a poor guy having to suffer 17 years of hell. Still only he really knows the truth of his guilt or not.
If he was guilty i would have had him on a prison ship in the Bay of Bengal for 20 years scrubbing the decks daily.
Yo ho ho and a bottle of Irish
Ok the guy was a drug smuggler , so what ? he didn't deserve that long in a thai jail, child molesters and murderers deserve that.
Describing the conditions he said: "It was a hell-hole. You understand that 10% of the prison population die every year - about 5,000 prisoners
Wow - is this true?
the old police informer sting...I'd say the chances this guy was guilty are pretty slim.
of course that would be a Thai jail that's full of Thai & Burmese generals..you know the ones who actually run the trade.
Any drug smuggler is no better than a murderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsam
Have you considered just how many people die due to the actions of drug smugglers being in the chain that makes this stuff available?
Smuggling drugs for commercial use should carry the death sentence no matter what nationality the carrier is.
more die because of alcohol-every day.
Guys,
I heard about this gentleman also, and was told he was offered repatriation on a number of occasions and turned it down , in the hope he would gain an Amnesty.
His case, I know nothing about.
"Any drug smuggler is no better than a murderer. Have you considered just how many people die due to the actions of drug smugglers being in the chain that makes this stuff available? Smuggling drugs for commercial use should carry the death sentence no matter what nationality the carrier is."
And that was written by somebody calling themselves Naughty BUT NICE???
Guilty or not, the 'hell hole' he says he was in does not seem to have had much of a detrimental
effect on him, judging by the photo accompanying the article in the bbc news link in the first post of this thread. He looks decidely rosy-cheeked and well-fed (that is always assuming the photo was taken recently) !
...the 'hell hole' he says he was in does not seem to have had much of a detrimental effect on him"
He probably had the money to buy an easy time. It's difficult to know what Thai jails are for..they offer no rehabilitaion of any form-just brutal punishment.
I'm surprised they don't go a step further like jails in Bali where a prisoner can buy days out of jail..usually westerners.
Hardly fair.
And of course we know every convicted criminal is indeed guilty , thank god/buddha there was never ever a wrong verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaafarabutarab
And please tell us jaafarabutarab, exactly what detailed research went into arriving at those percentages that you have come up with? I would say very little in my opinion, if in fact any at all. Assuming that you are right and the percentages are low for those that are innocent and languishing in prison, one per cent should be a figure that is thought of by us all as being too high. Would you not agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaafarabutarab
G.
relax, I don't blame you for anything, at least we agree that not everyone in jail is indeed guilty , and I realize that the majority of them is, but like George above said isn't even 1% of wrong verdicts to much? And in countries like Thailand I suspect the number of 1% is very Conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaafarabutarab
About the British guy I really don't know , I think 17 years in Thai prison is far to long even if he was guilty.
Be careful there Jetsam. Don't forget, jaafarabutarab on occasion (& brace yourself for this) ... 'cites Santayana'!
Cheers ...
"I said something quite the opposite -- if you go into a prison, you will find that every prisoner claims he is innocent" - quote from Jaafarabutarab (see above).
Well, that certainly does not include those who entered a "guilty" plea in court. And that is quite a substantial number.
Better a system where a hundred guilty men go free, rather than a system where a single innocent man is wrongly punished.
Says who? You, until one of those free guilty men kills someone you love?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsilius
George,Quote:
Originally Posted by George
I most certainly agree!
Guys,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsilius
I have said before, please don't forget the Thai system gives you half of the sentence if you plead guilty. People who have no money for legal representation plead gulity. [ what choice, other than principles, do they have? ]
Let's not forget, we are dealing with Third World justice!
No system would be perfect as police and politicians will always be corrupt.
"I have said before, please don't forget the Thai system gives you half of the sentence if you plead guilty."..same same as the UK and US although there isn't a specific term like half of the sentence but the pressure is always there to plead guilty if you can't afford good legal advice.
careful boygeenyus...you don't have to be guilty to fall foul of the law..just a momentary diversion of attention when driving and you could be facing manslaughter charges. That's when you will glad of a good lawyer and hopefully a good judge.
In USA if a judge comments on record upon sentencing that he is giving the defendant 20 years because he took the case to trial but would have given him 10 if he plead guilty, the sentence will be reversed in an appeal very quickly. A person can not be penalized for exercising his right to a trail.
The Reality is, if a case has over whelming evidence and the defendant takes the case to trail and looses, he does get a more years then if he had just plead open, most times. The judge just has to keep his mouth shut.
Plea negotiations or plea bargaining generally results in a lighter sentence than if a defendant takes a case to trial and looses, otherwise, why would the defense agree to the deal?
Having the best legal defense does not always work in the favor of the defendant if the defendant is very guilty. Just ask Martha.
In the Thai criminal system, I understand that there is no fixed rule about getting a break (half the sentence) if one pleads guilty; however, by historical practice, that is how it works most times and the judges openly say that from the bench.
In the US system, Trongpai is right that a sentence would be immediately reversed if there was any hint on the record that the defendant was penalized for exercising his/her constitutional rights (demanding a trial). But: (1) Given the growth of rather rigid sentencing guidelines in the last 20 years, the sentence is often the same for the same act even if it's pleaded down to the next lower offense (and, of course, prosecutors typically overcharge knowing that they'll plea the matter down to get the sentence they believe is appropriate) and (2) many misdemeanors (typically offenses calling for a maximum of 1 year incarceration or less) often receive the same sentence (perhaps a fine and/or probation for a first offense) by historical practice and guidelines regardless if the conviction is by plea or by trial.
What might be interesting to see would be a study on how long a person serves in Thailand or the US for the same drug offense. With the rather severe mandatory minimums in the US for any significant quantity of drugs - and with the practice of pardons of Thai prisoners who have served 10+ years, I'm wondering if the actual time served would be comparable in reality. Of course, how and where one serves the sentence is probably as (or more) important (I'd maybe take ten years in a US federal prison anyday compared to five years in any Thai prison).
A public defender, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by kquill
Boygeenyus,Quote:
Originally Posted by boygeenyus
How much interst do you think they have out here with a person who has no money?? Yes, you can say its their job, but they don't do it, let's say, enthusiastically!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kquill
The difference from back home being...?
The system in the UK is much simpler. They either find you not guilty or you can say you were drunk or high on drugs and they let you off with it anyway.