Appears his own family were only informed after the event.

2 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Yep , you are perfectly right! They shouldn´t had left the poor man suffering for 6 years, and proceeded with ending his life directly after his sentence.

...with the proviso that anyone connected to the case in the event of a wrongful conviction's lives would also be forefit. Fair's fair... 

5 hours ago, ukrules said:

Well, you get what you vote for ?

Only if you get to vote

They can have the death penalty if they want. 

But there are privileges and organisations that thailand is a part of just by taking the steps towards abolition. Thailand has worked really hard to be part of that and were just 1 year away from their goal. There were some really horific crimes such as the 13 year old, punched in the stomach so hard that she passed out, raped and thrown alive off a train. A little child drugged, raped by her own father and his mates that died from her injuries and thrown in the trees by her parents. The Thai have really resisted the temptation. 

So, thailand is no longer entitled to be part of those organisations and no longer considered a free country either. He was 19 at the time of his crime. His crime was horrible, but not heinous. He deserved a life sentence and hard labour. 

Seems to me some people are more worried about what actions are taken against those who do wrong 

than those who are wronged

17 minutes ago, baboon said:

I am against the death penalty for every crime other than noisy exhaust pipes. It is wrong. Furthermore, 'society' knows it is wrong too - why else would they devise ever 'cleaner' methods of execution when the condemned could be hung, drawn and quartered or bludgeoned to death?

If a country decides to grant itself the power of life or death then it should be ready to get its hands dirty, not hide behind faux 'medical' procedures.

 

Society also knows it wrong for some people to take others lives - for sexual gratification, in the process of crime, for fun, because they were drugged up or criminally insane etc.

 

Punishments vary depending on the context. But death should be an available punishment for those who wantonly kill another human and rob that person of all they have, their past, present and future. Why should that killer be allowed to live a longer life having taking one or more away?

 

Not an automatic punishment but one that should be available where there is absolute proof of guilt.

 

We saw a case here recently where an American who had previously murdered someone and been jailed then paroled killed an Australian with extreme violence. Had he been executed the Australian would still be alive. That American seems to have escaped any consequences for his second murder too.

'Prayut Chan-o-cha added his voice to support of the death penalty, claiming it was essential to keeping law and order ...'

 

By that reckoning, a certain general I know should be hanging from a gibbet for the ultimate smashing of law and order - in the form of a treasonous coup.

 

But his neck is secure. This is Thailand.

I agree it was shameful, and a waste of tax payers money.  It should have been done quickly with several shots at close range right through the heart.  And it should be done in a public forum, adding extra shame to the victim.  There seems to be less than concrete evidence that public executions really were or are a deterrent, not a large deterrent anyway.  But I am sure it is a deterrent to some people and if it deters one, than that makes it worthwhile

2 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

I agree it was shameful, and a waste of tax payers money.  It should have been done quickly with several shots at close range right through the heart.  And it should be done in a public forum, adding extra shame to the victim.  There seems to be less than concrete evidence that public executions really were or are a deterrent, not a large deterrent anyway.  But I am sure it is a deterrent to some people and if it deters one, than that makes it worthwhile

No thanks. I wouldn't want to see such 'justice' dispensed any more than I would wish to witness the initial crime.

You take a life, you lose the right to live ?

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

No thanks. I wouldn't want to see such 'justice' dispensed any more than I would wish to witness the initial crime.

Right.

And where is the moral logic in this attitude: 'It is wrong to kill. You have killed - therefore, I am going to kill you.'?!!!

 

If an animal is sick it should be put down....anyone committing a heinous crime should be treated the same....they forfeit the rights to live

18 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Society also knows it wrong for some people to take others lives - for sexual gratification, in the process of crime, for fun, because they were drugged up or criminally insane etc.

 

Punishments vary depending on the context. But death should be an available punishment for those who wantonly kill another human and rob that person of all they have, their past, present and future. Why should that killer be allowed to live a longer life having taking one or more away?

 

Not an automatic punishment but one that should be available where there is absolute proof of guilt.

 

We saw a case here recently where an American who had previously murdered someone and been jailed then paroled killed an Australian with extreme violence. Had he been executed the Australian would still be alive. That American seems to have escaped any consequences for his second murder too.

Sound arguments from your good self. However on balance I remain against the death penalty (apart from those little tossers with noisy exhausts, in which case their entire families should be wiped out).

I am afraid of miscarriages of justice.

I disagree with the notion of killing to prove killing is wrong.

I am mindful of the likes of Albert Pierrepoint who turned against the death penalty or the likes of John Ellis who went mad and killed himself as a result of the executions he carried out. It brutalises those in the justice system too.

 

However this is an issue where in no way can I say to my opponent "You are wrong". There are plenty of good reasons for the death penalty. It is just that I feel there are more reasons not to.

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

Sound arguments from your good self. However on balance I remain against the death penalty (apart from those little tossers with noisy exhausts, in which case their entire families should be wiped out).

I am afraid of miscarriages of justice.

I disagree with the notion of killing to prove killing is wrong.

I am mindful of the likes of Albert Pierrepoint who turned against the death penalty or the likes of John Ellis who went mad and killed himself as a result of the executions he carried out. It brutalises those in the justice system too.

 

However this is an issue where in no way can I say to my opponent "You are wrong". There are plenty of good reasons for the death penalty. It is just that I feel there are more reasons not to.

 

 

I beg to differ

 

If it is wrong to kill a person, then it is wrong to kill a person. End of.

 

There has to be consistency in morality if morality is not itself to fall into disrepute.

 

Life calls for hard decisions, it's important that morality governs and informs hard decisions.

 

If it's wrong, then it's wrong. Not 'it's wrong except when ...'

3 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

 

I beg to differ

 

If it is wrong to kill a person, then it is wrong to kill a person. End of.

 

There has to be consistency in morality if morality is not itself to fall into disrepute.

 

Life calls for hard decisions, it's important that morality governs and informs hard decisions.

 

If it's wrong, then it's wrong. Not 'it's wrong except when ...'

Err, I don't see where we are differing, but given the amount of rotgut I put away last night, (Jesus!) perhaps I am not expressing myself very well...

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Sound arguments from your good self. However on balance I remain against the death penalty (apart from those little tossers with noisy exhausts, in which case their entire families should be wiped out).

I am afraid of miscarriages of justice.

I disagree with the notion of killing to prove killing is wrong.

I am mindful of the likes of Albert Pierrepoint who turned against the death penalty or the likes of John Ellis who went mad and killed himself as a result of the executions he carried out. It brutalises those in the justice system too.

 

However this is an issue where in no way can I say to my opponent "You are wrong". There are plenty of good reasons for the death penalty. It is just that I feel there are more reasons not to.

 

I discussed this with my wife this morning. I told her that from what I understand just about every county has large amounts of people for and against the death penalty.

 

Of course there have been some tragic miscarriages of justice. Not only those later proven innocent like Timothy West but those who although involved clearly should never have received the death penalty like Derek Bentley. I use British examples but other countries probably have similar cases too. 

 

The improvements in forensic policing work and information availability help ensure wrongful convictions are minimized. But only where there is absolutely no doubt should a death sentence be even contemplated. A big concern is the lack of professional police standards, inept justice systems and political interference with the justice system which some countries suffer.

 

A nephew of Albert Pierrepoint once worked for me. He gave me a copy of one of the pages from his records / diary. It records the details of several SS death camp officials executed in Nuremburg - men and women, and one doctor. Still have it - a very meticulous man. He said Albert turned against capital punishment in later life. He lived in an old people's home in Southport and used to see some of his former "clients" in the gardens! 

 

 

12 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

 

I beg to differ

 

If it is wrong to kill a person, then it is wrong to kill a person. End of.

 

There has to be consistency in morality if morality is not itself to fall into disrepute.

 

Life calls for hard decisions, it's important that morality governs and informs hard decisions.

 

If it's wrong, then it's wrong. Not 'it's wrong except when ...'

 

So what punishment do you propose?

 

Life in a nice prison with wifi, reasonable food, chance to rehabilitate (555)?

 

Or Life with hard labor?

 

Or some other?

At the risk of starting a conspiracy theory, I can't help thinking that this case and the re-introduction of the death penalty is tied to the two Burmese lads of Koh Tao fame, or perhaps infamy is a better word. The timing seems to fit...

 

I spent many years in Indonesia, and as any 'old Indonesia hand' would tell you, the justice system there worked in a particular fashion. The legal system would pile up several Muslim people on Death Row, but they would sit and sit and sit and sit until... wait for it... a case where a Christian was sentenced to death for some crime or another. It happened on a regular basis; no Muslim would be executed until recently after a Christian person was put to death, then a whole slew of executions to clean out the Row. I am not saying that the trials were bad/rigged/unfair, it was simply a case where public opinion demanded that a Christian be executed before a Muslim, then it was fine for the prison/justice/law/criminal authorities to do a clean sweep.

 

I am not sure where in the process of appeals the Koh Tao lads are, but it has been long enough that I am sure they will be in appeal/verdict relatively soon. And, for the worst possible reason of "Face", I suspect that Thailand will want to see them executed in order to ensure that no one can criticize the Thai legal system (although everyone will). In order to apply the death penalty to the Koh Tao lads, Thailand needs to execute a few of her own citizens first; it would not be "proper" to re-introduce the death penalty and have 'foreigners' as the first victims.

 

Am I correct? I can't prove it, but as the same as many on TVF, I have lived in Asia a long time and you get a sense of 'something is going to happen', and my "Spidey sense" is going off madly at the moment.

 

I hope that I am wrong.

 

20 minutes ago, baboon said:

Err, I don't see where we are differing, but given the amount of rotgut I put away last night, (Jesus!) perhaps I am not expressing myself very well...

 

Well, it wasn't a swipe at you, it was a swipe at those who profess to be civilised and intelligent and yet still think that state murder is OK. It's a perennial disappointment that many people who should know better but don't, and professing to be intelligent, apply their intelligence selectively and, on occasion, are still overwhelmed by the animal instincts that form a part of us now as much they did in the stone age.

 

People are a disappointment by and large. I have no problem at all being labelled a misanthropist, after all, I don't like spiders and scorpions very much and yet many people have not progressed their inner nature much beyond arachnids. It's natural therefore that intelligent people should regard them with scorn..

 

 

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So what punishment do you propose?

 

Life in a nice prison with wifi, reasonable food, chance to rehabilitate (555)?

 

Or Life with hard labor?

 

Or some other?

I am much like the curate. I don't have to be able to lay an egg in order to know that parts of this one are rotten. Yours is a fallacious argument in this case.

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

If a society wants to have Capital Punishment, it is their right.

 

However, if you want to have Capital Punishment, you need to have an honest, effective police force, an honest, effective legal bureaucracy and an honest, effective Judiciary.

 

Does Thailand have an honest and effective police force? No.

Does Thailand have an honest and effective legal bureaucracy? No.

Does Thailand have an honest and effective Judiciary? No.

 

Under these circumstances, utilizing Capital Punishment is pure madness.

 

All good strong points, but it is hard to fault those who support the death penalty for habitual offenders that have shown a propensity to commit murder. Somehow they seem to be released back into the general population and suddenly they have committed an even more horrific crime. Once the execution takes place it is fairly certain that individuals personal crime spree has ended.

Just now, KiwiKiwi said:

I am much like the curate. I don't have to be able to lay an egg in order to know that parts of this one are rotten. Yours is a fallacious argument in this case.

 

So you don't like one solution favored by many but also have no opinion as to any alternative.

 

You have to break the egg first. I don't have to commit murder to know that those that do are often rotten.

Amnesty Intl. needs to understand that the sun revolves around Thailand, not the other way around. ?

The three women that killed and cut up the body of another woman should be executed. These are psychopathic and will do the same again is they get out of jail

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So you don't like one solution favored by many but also have no opinion as to any alternative.

 

You have to break the egg first. I don't have to commit murder to know that those that do are often rotten.

 

'I don't have to commit murder to know that those that do are often rotten.'

 

Friend, you don't know any such thing, and in any case, one has to measure rottenness in some non-arbitrary way. In any case, if you were being honest to your argument, you would not have used the word 'often'.

 

The civilised world knows enough now about mental illness to diagnose psycopathy, but has not yet evolved sufficiently to treat psycopaths similarly, hence Ted Bundy was electrocuted and many others are held in secure mental units.

 

Sorry, friend, your arguments are leaky, they don't hold water. I acknowledge you are entitled to your view, and I hope you don't choose to do what you have, on occasion done in the past, and that is storm off in a huff or become abusive - there is no profit for you in either course.

 

I believe you to be wrong, and I further believe that for you to progress as a person, you will need to learn how to overcome the animal side of your brain which in this case, is expressing itself in a species of vengeful blood lust.

 

Agree or disagree, it's up to you, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

1 minute ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

'I don't have to commit murder to know that those that do are often rotten.'

 

Friend, you don't know any such thing, and in any case, one has to measure rottenness in some non-arbitrary way. In any case, if you were being honest to your argument, you would not have used the word 'often'.

 

The civilised world knows enough now about mental illness to diagnose psycopathy, but has not yet evolved sufficiently to treat psycopaths similarly, hence Ted Bundy was electrocuted and many others are held in secure mental units.

 

Sorry, friend, your arguments are leaky, they don't hold water. I acknowledge you are entitled to your view, and I hope you don't choose to do what you have, on occasion done in the past, and that is storm off in a huff or become abusive - there is no profit for you in either course.

 

I believe you to be wrong, and I further believe that for you to progress as a person, you will need to learn how to overcome the animal side of your brain which in this case, is expressing itself in a species of vengeful blood lust.

 

Agree or disagree, it's up to you, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Where exactly is this civilized world that you refer to?

6 minutes ago, upu2 said:

The three women that killed and cut up the body of another woman should be executed. These are psychopathic and will do the same again is they get out of jail

 

Psycopathy is a mental illness. They should be in a hospital no less than should a severely autistic person. That is the civilised way of doing things; as people we should be well past the 'lop off their heads' stage.

 

We are people, not animals.

1 minute ago, upu2 said:

Where exactly is this civilized world that you refer to?

 

It should be all around us, and but for the semi-evolved people in our midst, it would be.

18 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Psycopathy is a mental illness. They should be in a hospital no less than should a severely autistic person. That is the civilised way of doing things; as people we should be well past the 'lop off their heads' stage.

 

We are people, not animals.

A good treatment for them is to have them hold their breath for an hour or two. As for being animals we are not I agree. They dont kill because they have someone look at them or dont like the way they dress. We are inferior to animals in the way we act

18 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

It should be all around us, and but for the semi-evolved people in our midst, it would be.

I agree it should be around us but in reality it does not exist