2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Ok, let me rephrase that then, 50 years for using a a company car privately is fricking ridiculous!!!! This would result in a fine in most other countries! 

The 21 separate charges were for "corruption and misconduct by senior government officials", not "using a company car privately".   And they only got 5 years for each charge.

23 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The 21 separate charges were for "corruption and misconduct by senior government officials", not "using a company car privately".   And they only got 5 years for each charge.

A core principle of criminal justice -

Let the punishment fit the crime.

Question for you: Did the judges in this particular case follow the above principle?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thank you

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's all there in the full OP.  That you didn't, or couldn't read it, is your issue....

"The Criminal Court On Corruption & Misconduct for the northeastern region ruled that Rungrak Lukbua, head of the Yasothorn Provincial Administration’s Education, Religion and Culture Section has been found guilty as earlier charged by the provincial branch of the National Anti-Corruption Commission of having perpetrated misconduct by turning the state-own sedan primarily provided for official use into private use as if it was his own possession for nearly two years.

Between 2014 and 2016, the state-owned car had not been parked in the premises of the provincial administration but evidently found at Rungrak’s home in Saimun district and been often used by the defendant to shuttle himself to and from an army golf course where he had played golf.

A total of 21 counts of Rungrak’s convicted misconduct initially handed him a jail sentence of 105 years which was curtailed to 52 years and six months due to confession made by the defendant and finally cut down to a maximum of 50 years".

Then murder should be 500 years

3 hours ago, traveller101 said:

A core principle of criminal justice -

Let the punishment fit the crime.

That is actually not laid down, specifically, in any legal system, it's just an old adage.    Five years for corruption and misconduct from a senior government official fit's the crime pretty well.

3 hours ago, traveller101 said:

A core principle of criminal justice -

Let the punishment fit the crime.

Question for you: Did the judges in this particular case follow the above principle?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thank you

Five years for the offence?   Yes.  Simple enough for you?

On 10/13/2023 at 7:09 AM, BenStark said:

Time to move on, our resident pedant has entered the thread

 

Should read pedant's! I might stay and get the popcorn out!!!

42 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is actually not laid down, specifically, in any legal system, it's just an old adage.    Five years for corruption and misconduct from a senior government official fit's the crime pretty well.

Ok - so 50 years can be regarded as unreasonable and "way over the top", to put it mildly.

Unbelievable he got 50 years for misuse of a vehicle but some murderers/rapists only 20.......TIT!

He must have really pissed off his superiors, possibly too much loss of face, hence the harsh sentence.

How can that warrant 50 years in jail? They are practically taking the guy's life away from him.

On 10/13/2023 at 10:21 AM, observer90210 said:

Any news about the Redbull heir fugitive ?

Enjoying his life I would expect.

 

Only 1,419 days to go till statute of limitations kicks in.

17 hours ago, cracker1 said:

The sentence seems a bit "Over the Top" !

5 years per charge reduced to 2.5yrs per charge due to admission of guilt.

The over the top part is they have to be served consecutively and not concurrently.

17 hours ago, traveller101 said:

Ok - so 50 years can be regarded as unreasonable and "way over the top", to put it mildly.

Well to put it accurately, not mildly, 5 years is not "way over the top" for a corruption and misconduct charge for senior government officials.   

What is "way over the top" is his putting himself in the position of committing 21 corruption and misconduct offences.

Some posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed. Please go to the 

Full story: THAI NEWSROOM to read the full story and gather the information provided.

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Well to put it accurately, not mildly, 5 years is not "way over the top" for a corruption and misconduct charge for senior government officials.   

What is "way over the top" is his putting himself in the position of committing 21 corruption and misconduct offences.

Finally you answered my  Yes or No question (re: whether or not a 50 year jail sentence for using a government vehicle for private purposes is harsh and unreasonable).............

After several more posts of uttering  gobbledigook desperately trying to justify the unjustifiable.

1 hour ago, traveller101 said:

Finally you answered my  Yes or No question (re: whether or not a 50 year jail sentence for using a government vehicle for private purposes is harsh and unreasonable).............

After several more posts of uttering  gobbledigook desperately trying to justify the unjustifiable.

I'd love to see you try to point out the "gobbledigook" in any of my comments relating to this thread.   With your explanation of why you think it was "gobbledigook", of course.

Thailand's legal system on full display in all its glory....

 

One of a couple things likely to happen:

 

--the guy will be out on bail and abscond to a neighboring country before ever serving a day of his sentence, or

 

--perhaps he'll actually start serving his sentence, and will end up being released or pardoned or commuted before you can blink an eyelash.

 

Thaksin and his hospital scam should be considered the new role model for all these guys.

 

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'd love to see you try to point out the "gobbledigook" in any of my comments relating to this thread.   With your explanation of why you think it was "gobbledigook", of course.

Let me sum it up - plain common sense or in your case a complete lack thereof.

12 hours ago, traveller101 said:

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'd love to see you try to point out the "gobbledigook" in any of my comments relating to this thread.   With your explanation of why you think it was "gobbledigook", of course.

Let me sum it up - plain common sense or in your case a complete lack thereof.

Well, you didn't "sum it up", neither were you able to indicate any of the "gobbledigook" that you claimed I posted.  Now you accuse me of having a lack of plain common sense...how do you come to that conclusion, specifically, please?