3 hours ago, SABloke said:

And, no, Little Boss does not have a red notice anymore.

Says who?  Just because it's not available to be read on Interpol's website means nothing.

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 Can his assets be seized, or does that only work for Shinawatras?

For what?  Traffic offences?

1 hour ago, Cereal said:

Lemme get this straight. Dartboard bad...murder okay.

Yeah I understand.

murder. not quite mate. he was pissed and didn't intentionally kill the bib. i'm sure he just wanted to get home without running anyone over

1 hour ago, ChidlomDweller said:

And not just under the influence of alcohol, but that was never reported in the Thai press.

If you're referring to cocaine then, yes, it was mentioned, many times.

Just now, Just Weird said:

If you're referring to cocaine then, yes, it was mentioned, many times.

bringing his London bar habits to BKK eh 5555

1 hour ago, Cereal said:

Lemme get this straight. Dartboard bad...murder okay.

Yeah I understand.

No you don't, there was no murder.

2 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

It's galling to civilised outsiders, but with a massive effort I can manage to take a pragmatic Thai perspective for a minute.

 

As it was one of theirs who was killed, the police obviously treated this as a personal settlement. They would have secured big compensation for the victim's family, who otherwise would have got nothing, and money is the best way to alleviate misfortune. They also prevented waste of public funds by not sending him to jail. And there is recognition of his family's huge contribution to the Thai economy, which has to be worth something, and apparently is worth an alternative form of justice. And in any case, sending him to jail would have done nothing to preventing reckless/drunk driving, which is by definition reckless, so it would be an empty exercise of the law for a pointless principle.

 

The guy didn't get off scot free as he is now truly hated, and no doubt it costs a sizeable sum to rise above the law, and he also has to live in exile - and of course he is still vulnerable to future changes of government.

Punishment for a crime is meant also to act as a deterrent to others of the same ilk and your thesis takes no account of this.

Additionally; as to compensation I did read somewhere that the family  (not the police) instigated a claim for 10 million baht but we're beaten down to 3 million by the billionaires.

I also read that Thai people were switching to  Carabao  and that drink now outsold Red Bull.

4 minutes ago, Lemonltr said:

Punishment for a crime is meant also to act as a deterrent to others of the same ilk and your thesis takes no account of this.

Additionally; as to compensation I did read somewhere that the family  (not the police) instigated a claim for 10 million baht but we're beaten down to 3 million by the billionaires.

We will never know the "actual' amount paid to the family or "others"..

2 minutes ago, Lemonltr said:

I also read that Thai people were switching to  Carabao  and that drink now outsold Red Bull.

thailand is such a small market for redbull i can't see it making a difference. m150 seems to do well

22 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

For what?  Traffic offences?

Well he did kill somebody, then do a runner and try to pin the blame on someone else - perhaps a bit more than a mere traffic offence?

Just now, JAG said:

Well he did kill somebody, then do a runner and try to pin the blame on someone else - perhaps a bit more than a mere traffic offence?

but a traffic offence nontheless

30 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Read the post immediately before yours..."Reckless driving causing the death of another person".

Where do they mention a cop? The circumstances and details are substantially toned down... if they wanted to get Interpol's attention, death of a policeman sounds much more serious. As does spelling reckless with just the two s's rather than three as in the notice.  

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

Well he did kill somebody, then do a runner and try to pin the blame on someone else - perhaps a bit more than a mere traffic offence?

Yes, folk in the UK can and do get locked up for killing someone through dangerous driving..

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Yes, folk in the UK can and do get locked up for killing someone through dangerous driving..

but this is Thailand and the UK will quite happily accommodate him whilst wanted (not really) by thai police. such a good system they have in the UK

Have the courts freeze all red bull assets in Thailand and bank accounts. continue the court case in his absence.

2 hours ago, farcanell said:

Because criminals are being locked up for committing crimes, perhaps?

 

im not about to try and answer this for the entire world, but as it pertains to my country of origion, it appears as though persons on remand, unable to post bail, make up a large percentage of the prison population (33%)... these persons, by and large, are released post court proceedings (overworked courts is contributory)

 

But... as a deterrent, prison capacity is irrelevant... what you need to do is look at recidivism rates (40% roughly.... all countries differ) to determine the effectiveness of punishment, and then determine which crimes are most commonly the reason for recidivism, and the why of it.

 

So.... your question is about the values of crime and punishment, and there are numerous conflicting studies on this.... I suggest you look there for answers to your question

Any form of punishment is logically a deterrent, but only a partial deterrent. The proof of that is that the prisons are still full.

Those crimes that are likely to be deterred are premeditated crimes rather than crimes of passion or idiocy or lack of judgement - I think that's also logical. Crimes of recklessness are less likely to be deterred by threat of punishment.

So it seems to me that prison is less necessary as the threatened form of punishment for some crimes - there are other forms, such as fines, or exile, or corporal punishment (as in Singapore), and society should choose the form that is most appropriate to the situation.

 

As I said, I'm using Thai empathy here, rather than slavishly adhering to the unbendable system I was brought up in, which I think also has its faults - for example, the UK has lots of stupid laws as the legal system there is really not very good at psychology.

 

 

Edited March 14, 20188 yr by CharlesSwann

6 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

the UK has lots of stupid laws as the legal system there is really not very good at psychology.

Isn't that the nature of Common Law - used by both UK and Thailand?

Common Law is a body of legal rules that have been made by judges as they issue rulings on cases, as opposed to rules and laws made by the legislature or in official statutes.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/common-law

Obviously, such a legal system will create clashes between the judiciary and the legislature. It's the legislature's duty to resolve such conflicts, or allow them to continue to exist.

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Isn't that the nature of Common Law - used by both UK and Thailand?

Common Law is a body of legal rules that have been made by judges as they issue rulings on cases, as opposed to rules and laws made by the legislature or in official statutes.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/common-law

Obviously, such a legal system will create clashes between the judiciary and the legislature. It's the legislature's duty to resolve such conflicts, or allow them to continue to exist.

I don't know, but the UK has a jury system so the laws are effectively decided by the people, whereas in Thailand they are decided by oligarchs.

 

Point I am making is that one's own legal system is not necessary right in the first place, and doubly not necessary right for Thailand.

We think: "in my country he would go to prison for that" because that's the system we were brought up in, and people are always stuck in their ways. Why not question instead whether prison is actually appropriate in every cirumstance? I don't believe it is. In many cases the whole concept of imprisonment is a silly and costly idea. It should be used for those who are a clear and present danger to society rather than as a punishment for every crime (especially crimes of passion or recklessness).

19 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

It should be used for those who are a clear and present danger to society rather than as a punishment for every crime (especially crimes of passion or recklessness).

I understand your point.... the systems that we know, could indeed investigate alternatives.... vs building more and more prisons

 

that said, we are looking at “reckless” from different view points. 

 

“Reckless” can be discribed as having no regard for consequence.... in a society that does not rigidly enforce consequence, the incidence of recklessness will be higher... folk must be forced to consider the consequences of their action, to stop reckless behavior

 

in Australia, one of the worst driving charges... (highest penalties), is for reckless driving.... this is how our country discourages recklessness

 

and... a reckless person is a constant danger... perhaps not “clear”... but certainly a “present danger”.... being able to control our emotions, is part of what makes us human, if you can’t... well you did mention exile somewhere, which may be fitting, as these creatures should not be a party to a society that they choose to abuse.

 

now with young bull.... if he has paid restitution to the immediate victim, all well and good, but we live in a society, which has also been abused, as has the laws of the society, and the implications to the society as a whole needs considering, and imho, demonstrating to society that a rich person is untouchable, is a really bad message, regardless of the truth of it.... and.... it underpins corruption to an exponential level.

13 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

It's not completely concluded - they plan to award themselves some reward money first. 

Yep, and uncle tuu will say he satisfied with the results!

2 hours ago, phetpeter said:

Have the courts freeze all red bull assets in Thailand and bank accounts. continue the court case in his absence.

Won't work....It's Red Bull not Red Shirts and his name is not Shinawatra

Edited March 14, 20188 yr by PREM-R

Not sure why this is news. They never had any real intention to bring him to justice. Like they say, he is one of the good guys. 

4 hours ago, Tilacme said:

Wasn't it only last week that the PM was advocating a stepping up of efforts to catch law breakers overseas??  Guess the BIB didn't get the memo.

That was his personal vendetta against the shins, not the Red Bull scrote by any means! 

6 hours ago, farcanell said:

I’m sure he has... but he’s the minor shareholder, isn’t he?

 

if so... just a lacky to be ignored

Yes, that's right, Mateschitz only holds 49% of the shares, so, as you say, just a lackey worth US$26 Billion, to be ignored.

37 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

Yes, that's right, Mateschitz only holds 49% of the shares, so, as you say, just a lackey worth US$26 Billion, to be ignored.

?.... he who holds 51% is the boss, to do the telling... as in “controlling shares”.... control being the significant word amongst the chaff.

A post containing profanity has been removed. 

4 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Amazing, distort the truth.  Arrest some members of an illegal logging gang and jail them for a short while (they were released a long time ago).

 

Why should the family of the officer comment considering that years ago they agreed to a compensation payout?

Yes, amazing distort the truth. The loggers and the mushroom pickers were not the same people.  And as for the "compensation payout"... correction, it's called payoff to keep quiet, or else.

Yingluck’s passport was quickly cancelled, why can’t the Boss’s be treated similarly? Or does he have a selection like her?

 

Announcements like this do nothing to improve the image or reputation of the Royal Thai Police Farce!

47 minutes ago, farcanell said:

?.... he who holds 51% is the boss, to do the telling... as in “controlling shares”.... control being the significant word amongst the chaff.

irrelevent  IMO