Cop’s grieving family drops legal threat after drunk driver pays record Bt45m

[lkv]

1 hour ago, sambum said:

Basically the facts are that 45m baht gets homicide charges dropped.

 

" Somchai has already pleaded guilty to the three remaining charges of speeding, drunk driving and reckless driving."

 

What's the betting that the "restitution" keeps him out of jail?

No, 45m is for the homicide charges.

 

For the others, they will likely milk him for a few more million, maybe 5-10, in installments.

 

These sagas tend to be dragged in courts for months and years, to ensure constant revenue.

Edited July 2, 2019 by lkv

[sambum]

46 minutes ago, RobboR said:

There's a LOT of people in Thailand that are literally above the law

Sorry,  I worded my comment badly - I should have emphasised that point myself!

[sambum]

2 minutes ago, lkv said:

No, 45m is for the homicide charges.

 

For the others, they will likely milk him for a few more million, maybe 5-10, in installments.

"No, 45m is for the homicide charges."

 

That is EXACTLY what I said! i.e "Basically the facts are that 45m baht gets homicide charges dropped", and "What's the betting that the "restitution" keeps him out of jail?"

[StevieAus]

11 hours ago, RobboR said:

Absolutely no chance . They have actual reporters still in civilised countries and cops who actually do their jobs.

The amount of people that attend an accident, especially if there is a death is immense.

Every chance, money talks all around the  world look what happens in the US with plea bargaining, I seem to recall one of the Kennedy family escaping justice after leaving a woman to drown in a car

Not everyone who is responsible for motor vehicle  deaths goes to jail.

Many years ago a good friend of mine in Australia was hit from behind when driving his motorcycle home he was killed leaving behind a wife and two children.

The female driver of the car who was not intoxicated but found guilty served no prison time, the court finding that “she had suffered enough” and in this case she paid no money.

[AI5AASIA]

14 hours ago, leeneeds said:

Should never be allowed to hold a driving licence again, EVER!

Manslaughter 5 years, x 2 = 10 years, culpable killing by being drunk.

And the never holding a driving licence again, for which the punishment for driving without a licence is?

[chama]

So now we know how much a deputy police commander's life is worth? This policy of buying your way out of trouble for killing others just does not seem right.

[observer90210]

If this drunken murderer could shell his way out of the law with 45mio THB, the RedBull je*rk should need to shell out at least 500 million THB...in fact a court should make a ruling and seize the REdbull fellow's assets in the country and give half of them to the family of the murdered cop....

[Jonmarleesco]

On 7/1/2019 at 8:25 PM, snoop1130 said:

The family of a deputy police commander killed in a road accident has dropped the threat of legal action against the drunk driver responsible after he paid Bt45 million in compensation.

TiT, where money can buy ANYTHING! Except the deceased his life back! And doubtless the drunk driver is now free to get p__sed enough to kill someone else.

[Jonmarleesco]

11 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

If this drunken murderer could shell his way out of the law with 45mio THB, the RedBull je*rk should need to shell out at least 500 million THB...in fact a court should make a ruling and seize the REdbull fellow's assets in the country and give half of them to the family of the murdered cop....

His family has the assets, he doesn't. He's too incompetent and idle to earn any. And heaven forbid the court should rule AGAINST RB!

[Jonmarleesco]

'Public prosecutor have now decided to drop the charges related to homicide.'

 

T ruddy iT.

 

Money cures everything - unless you happen to be the one who's dead.

[lkv]

6 hours ago, sambum said:

"No, 45m is for the homicide charges."

 

That is EXACTLY what I said! i.e "Basically the facts are that 45m baht gets homicide charges dropped", and "What's the betting that the "restitution" keeps him out of jail?"

Sorry, I misread. I thought you meant 45m would cover it all.

 

I found it very strange in Thai logic. ????

[Sonhia]

All the money in the world will never bring back those killed! 45.million is for what? A sorry for killing people because I was drunk driving a Merc and so can do what I like, even.kill!

 

What is more important? I guess money is in this case. Money is more powerful than life. How sad humans have become.

 

The killer has taken the easy way out and can continue enjoying his personal life with his loved ones, driving Mercs; which are a load of rubbish, but the family and friends of those killed will have the remainder of their lives without their loved ones, only memories and the dirty money that paid for the deaths plus injuries.

 

[hobz]

On 7/2/2019 at 8:17 AM, RJRS1301 said:

Perhaps it could come as "Restorative Justice",

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

 

It is often used in "cultural" situations across the globe

 

It is used in conjunction with legal system, not instead of

Interesting read.

They emphasize preventing the offender from causing future harm and say that it works. If true, I'm all for it. But I doubt it. 

See, in some types of crimes, such a robbery, locking someone up just makes them more hardened criminals. So in those cases restorative justice might have a better chance of preventing them from causing future harm.

 

But, in a case like this I'm not sure.

 

The difference between say a robbery and this drunk driver is that the drunk driver never intended to hurt anyone. This puts the two in very different categories and I bet different approaches to prevent future harm are required.

 

Am I making sense? You still think restorative justice makes sense even for the wealthy drunk driver who thinks he is above the law? And will continue to think so once he paid his way out?

 

I also don't like how the restorative justice article says that the opposite to restorative justice is retribution. I think you should put some people in jail not for retribution itself but for preventing them from doing further crimes. Crime prevention. Deterrent.

 

Another key element in drunk driving cases specifically is wether the offender is a alcoholic/addict or not. An addict requires a different treatment in terms of preventing further harm. Throwing them in jail and ruining their lives will probably have them come out drinking again unless they receive therapy in jail.. but some would also take the opportunity to become clean... But coming out of jail to a ruined life gives lots of incentives to start drinking again. Loss of job, reputation, income, spouse, etc..

Edited July 3, 2019 by hobz

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, hobz said:

Interesting read.

They emphasize preventing the offender from causing future harm and say that it works. If true, I'm all for it. But I doubt it. 

See, in some types of crimes, such a robbery, locking someone up just makes them more hardened criminals. So in those cases restorative justice might have a better chance of preventing them from causing future harm.

 

But, in a case like this I'm not sure.

 

The difference between say a robbery and this drunk driver is that the drunk driver never intended to hurt anyone. This puts the two in very different categories and I bet different approaches to prevent future harm are required.

 

Am I making sense? You still think restorative justice makes sense even for the wealthy drunk driver who thinks he is above the law? And will continue to think so once he paid his way out?

 

I also don't like how the restorative justice article says that the opposite to restorative justice is retribution. I think you should put some people in jail not for retribution itself but for preventing them from doing further crimes. Crime prevention. Deterrent.

 

Another key element in drunk driving cases specifically is wether the offender is a alcoholic/addict or not. An addict requires a different treatment in terms of preventing further harm. Throwing them in jail and ruining their lives will probably have them come out drinking again unless they receive therapy in jail.. but some would also take the opportunity to become clean... But coming out of jail to a ruined life gives lots of incentives to start drinking again. Loss of job, reputation, income, spouse, etc..

Having seen restorative justice work in a few jurisdictions,(worlds apart) it is a complex process, and has to be agreed on by the offending party/ies and those offended against.

The guidelines and boundaries and  processes are set out in documents when the process is set up, not all crimes/offending of course can be considered suitable under the restorative justice model

 

I have seen it used for those who have addictions, and sometimes part of the agreed "sentencing" has been undertaking therapy to address the addiction, with regular reports over a period of time, (12 months), when used in conjunction with the "justice system, the "offender" may have a suspended sentence, which if further breaches occur will bring them back before the courts for the new offending and for sentencing on the "suspended" sentence. 

 

One of the big factors is that the "victims" are "heard" by the offender/s, they here about the impact of their offending has had on the "victims" , this occurs face to face with a set guidelines and boundaries.

 

It is interesting that "penalties" can range from monetary to community service/volunteering/ forfeiture of possessions (if agreed by the justice system), as well as a possible suspended sentence. The "conviction " will be "purged" after a specific time and will not come up on police checks. The name of the offenders remain on file, but no further information is available, offenders generally except very extreme circumstance only have one bite of the cherry.

 

 

 

[Knocker33]

Seems like life is not that cheap here anymore

[cmrichsw]

Different rules for different people - World wide

[rkidlad]

23 hours ago, hobz said:

Interesting read.

They emphasize preventing the offender from causing future harm and say that it works. If true, I'm all for it. But I doubt it. 

See, in some types of crimes, such a robbery, locking someone up just makes them more hardened criminals. So in those cases restorative justice might have a better chance of preventing them from causing future harm.

 

But, in a case like this I'm not sure.

 

The difference between say a robbery and this drunk driver is that the drunk driver never intended to hurt anyone. This puts the two in very different categories and I bet different approaches to prevent future harm are required.

 

Am I making sense? You still think restorative justice makes sense even for the wealthy drunk driver who thinks he is above the law? And will continue to think so once he paid his way out?

 

I also don't like how the restorative justice article says that the opposite to restorative justice is retribution. I think you should put some people in jail not for retribution itself but for preventing them from doing further crimes. Crime prevention. Deterrent.

 

Another key element in drunk driving cases specifically is wether the offender is a alcoholic/addict or not. An addict requires a different treatment in terms of preventing further harm. Throwing them in jail and ruining their lives will probably have them come out drinking again unless they receive therapy in jail.. but some would also take the opportunity to become clean... But coming out of jail to a ruined life gives lots of incentives to start drinking again. Loss of job, reputation, income, spouse, etc..

The number one reason I don’t drink drive is because there’s a good chance I could hurt or kill someone. The second most important reason is I know I would go to prison if I did. Very simple. I have a moral code and I know the law. 

 

This man should be in prison. He took the lives of two people all because he wanted to drive his car when drunk. Make him pay the money and serve his time. 

 

If you don’t wanna go to prison for vehicular manslaughter, don’t drink and drive. If you think that’s unfair, go ahead and do it. You can think about how unfair it is while you’re in prison. 

 

Two people are dead and a girl is orphaned all because of a complete act of selfishness. I don’t want any drunk drivers on the roads. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by rkidlad

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.

[kiwikeith]

On 7/2/2019 at 2:15 AM, JAG said:

Somehow, with that large a sum of money "on the table" I very much doubt it - as I am sure do you!

money can't buy me love, only counterfeit love.

[Prince77]

It may not fit in the picture of western style justice but I have the feeling that this guy is remorseful and accepts responsibility. in Thai culture this accident was about to happen anyhow and with this Agreement at least the Family of the cop will have the Support to get over it.

[hobz]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:24 AM, rkidlad said:

The number one reason I don’t drink drive is because there’s a good chance I could hurt or kill someone. The second most important reason is I know I would go to prison if I did. Very simple. I have a moral code and I know the law. 

 

This man should be in prison. He took the lives of two people all because he wanted to drive his car when drunk. Make him pay the money and serve his time. 

 

If you don’t wanna go to prison for vehicular manslaughter, don’t drink and drive. If you think that’s unfair, go ahead and do it. You can think about how unfair it is while you’re in prison. 

 

Two people are dead and a girl is orphaned all because of a complete act of selfishness. I don’t want any drunk drivers on the roads. 

100% agree. 

Allowing this guy to just pay and move on with life as usual is not a strong enough deterrent. He will drink and drive again. Maybe he will be more "careful" the next time. But I doubt it.