george Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Court jails son of Miss Thailand for ten years BANGKOK: -- Phrakanong Court on Friday sentenced Kanpitak Pachimsawas, 21, son of former Miss Thailand, to 15 years and two months in jail on charges of premeditated-murder due to his aggressive driving which killed one and injured three others. The penalty was reduced to 10 years and one month as the defendant had already paid some compensation to the injured. On July 4, 2007, Kanpitak swerved his car into the footpath near a bus-stop where many people were waiting for buses after he got into an argument with the driver of bus number 513, claiming that the bus hit him and fled. One died and three others were injured. Court ordered Kanpitak, son of Kun-anek and Savinee; former Miss Thailand, to pay compensation to Sangwan Srihawong, for Bt800,000. Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress. -- The Nation 2009-01-30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbowman1993 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Enter the - "he'll never serve a day" brigade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimjim Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think he needs serious mental examination as the story just didn't sound like a sane person was behind the wheel of that car. Throw him in the looney bin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorin Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I believe they will appeal and drag it through the courts for 10 years...till then nobody will remember what happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchFARANGbkk Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! Where do you come from ? And about this news, it's one of the best since long time, and I am now waiting for the Santika result to see if this country is improving or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhaoNiaw Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! He wasn't 'driving dangerously' - he deliberately drove into the passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjan jb Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress. If so, he should not have been allowed to drive that car in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! Where do you come from ? And about this news, it's one of the best since long time, and I am now waiting for the Santika result to see if this country is improving or not... Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! He wasn't 'driving dangerously' - he deliberately drove into the passengers. Khainiaw, If thats the case, then I take back what I said, I don't recall this one & if it is the case that he drove deliberately into the crowd then I would be left wondering why there was a reduction in the initial sentence. FFBkk, I come from Australia & for some reason there it is completely acceptable for idiots to kill people in motorvehicles, I was just reading a sentence passed down by a NSW District Court this morning where an idiot who took the lives of 4 young people was sentenced to 2 years jail. Its standard there....offenders in the eyes of district and high court judges have more rights than the victims who lost their lives....appauling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeThePoster Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress. If so, he should not have been allowed to drive that car in the first place. Strictly enforced, that would disqualify half the drivers in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfie Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 10 and 800,000Bt? well it's a start... Should be that each for the injured and x10 for the deceased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardy1943 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress. If so, he should not have been allowed to drive that car in the first place. Strictly enforced, that would disqualify half the drivers in Thailand. Make it 90 % Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfie Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Mental hospital might be more appropriate though. Imagine the trouble this spoiled brat who can't control his temper is going to get himself into in jail. He'd better find himself a very large "friend" quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kartman Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress. If so, he should not have been allowed to drive that car in the first place. Strictly enforced, that would disqualify half the drivers in Thailand. Leaving the other half twice as much space for some "insane" carnage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotime Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Premeditated-murder is usually life, isn't it. The fact that the defendant had already paid some compensation to the injured is not a western practice. Maybe paying the judge some compensation would help. I also thought the defendant had a history of irrational behavior. Is he in jail now? He sounds like he'll eventually kill someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbk Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! Where do you come from ? And about this news, it's one of the best since long time, and I am now waiting for the Santika result to see if this country is improving or not... Thats an interesting result. In my home country many drivers who drive dangerously & kill people often leave court with little or no jail time at all. Its good to see the thai court is taken this so seriously. Having said that, typically, the offender gets 10 years, the victim gets life! He wasn't 'driving dangerously' - he deliberately drove into the passengers. Khainiaw, If thats the case, then I take back what I said, I don't recall this one & if it is the case that he drove deliberately into the crowd then I would be left wondering why there was a reduction in the initial sentence. It is that case, the details of which can be found here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on-on Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress.Kanpitak's parents meant to say that they raised a spoiled child without respect for other people and without any concept of social responsibility and gave him every material thing he could ever want while also making sure to use their affluence to ensure that he never experienced any truly negative repercussions from his increasingly volatile behavior and the end result is an insecure sociopath who cannot control himself when his fragile ego is punctured however slightly and who should be locked up to protect the rest of society as well as to be punished for murdering/injuring several people. Their publicist thought this version was better, though.EDIT: Let me add that I honestly can't believe this sentence. I'm looking forward to seeing if he serves it and hoping that he is forced to. I didn't expect even this much recognition of his crimes given the history of the case and the prominence of the family. For some reason, no criminal case in my brief several years of living here has been so symbolic to me of the class divides as this one and for that reason I've taken an unnecessary interest in it. EDIT/EDIT: Stupid grammatical error. Edited January 30, 2009 by on-on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjayjayjay Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress.Kanpitak's parents meant to say that they raised a spoiled child without respect for other people and without any concept of social responsibility and gave him every material thing he could ever want while also making sure to use their affluence to ensure that he never experienced any truly negative repercussions from his increasingly volatile behavior and the end result is an insecure sociopath who cannot control himself when his fragile ego is punctured however slightly and who should be locked up to protect the rest of society as well as to be punished for murdering/injuring several people. Their publicist thought this version was better, though.EDIT: Let me add that I honestly can't believe this sentence. I'm looking forward to seeing if he serves it and hoping that he is forced to. I didn't expect even this much recognition of his crimes given the history of the case and the prominence of the family. For some reason, no criminal case in my brief several years of living here has been so symbolic to me of the class divides as this one and for that reason I've taken an unnecessary interest in it. EDIT/EDIT: Stupid grammatical error. In the end the monster is 21yrs old, he'll have some tough decission to make in jail, I think he's old enough. There will be a lot of criminals already in there ready to teach him a lesson when that little temper comes up again. My guess it will happen on day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'm not sure this is the way it works here. I think that guys who got in jail here are really small fry without any rights or powers, they might threaten Kanpitak but if his parents find their relatives outside or pay the guards, the boy will leave his life relatively trouble free there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleFrank Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Appeal until statute of limitations runs out is my official bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumonster Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kanpitak's parents indicated he has a mental condition and he cannot control himself when he is under a lot of stress. If so, he should not have been allowed to drive that car in the first place. he was involved in another road rage incident less than a month after this tragedy if , and a big if he spends time in a real jail he will emerge as moo hee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmugFarangBore Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) It's a start but let's not all start slapping each other on the backs just yet. Let's wait until it is confirmed he actually is serving some time first. This case brings to the surface a lot of problems in Thai society that simmer beneath the smiles; primarily its hierarchical class divisions and untouchable upper classes. Remember this was no accident, as some poster earlier tried to compare what he believes are lenient sentences in Australia for accidental death caused by reckless driving; this was a deliberate act intended to harm several people with the car used as a weapon. Big, big difference. Edited January 30, 2009 by SmugFarangBore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junglejumbo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I don't know how anyone could forget this. It was in the headlines for a good few weeks. He's the one with the Father that scorned on the injured and and shouted that they were uneducated and shouldn't get compensation! The Father also showed off that the boy's uncle was either a current police chief or ex-one, and that this would help his case....He really seemed the worst of his kind...can't think who else would stoop so low. Probably not even Adolf Hitler. I'm in the camp who thinks he'll hardly serve anything, and no doubt have his own cell for "medical reasons". All I am wondering is if this case is a result of the new government and the policy to speed up old cases, and stop the revolution between the rich and poor, or if all that's just a coincidence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junglejumbo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Just to add to my previous comment, are criminal and civil courts one here in Thailand? Why do I read from time to time that a person can be tried in a civil court? How come the court took the civil proceedings into account (i.e. compensation) when handing down a criminal sentence? by-the-way, the family of the lady killed were seeking Bt2m without conditions to drop the case. The Court order is, if my memory is correct, actually in line with the Bt600,000-800,000 that the boys parents eventually got around to offering (but in return for the family dropping the charges which they refused to do). Therefore, I think its the family of killed loved one who deserve the most praise here because they refused to drop the case in return for money. This is how Thailand should develop....get over the money thing....and have some principals then most of Thailand's problems will slowly fade.. Edited January 30, 2009 by Junglejumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSnake Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Justice, maybe, now will he really do hard time??? My guess is NO! I had a Thai Friend(?) say to me when ask why he didn't carry first class insurance; no need just paid Bt100,000 all will be ok. Sad but that is the attitude of many Thai people that have money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Chalerm's son had to do a year on remand for murdering a policeman. I reckon Moo Ham will do a few month's for murdering a junior level BMTA employee. He will be found not guilty on appeal. Alternatively he could be immediately released on bail and never serve a day. No chance he'll do anywhere near 10 years. Thailand's system of seniority (his uncle is a very senior retired policeman and his parents are seriously rich businesspeople) would not allow him to serve 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 It's a start but let's not all start slapping each other on the backs just yet.Let's wait until it is confirmed he actually is serving some time first. This case brings to the surface a lot of problems in Thai society that simmer beneath the smiles; primarily its hierarchical class divisions and untouchable upper classes. Remember this was no accident, as some poster earlier tried to compare what he believes are lenient sentences in Australia for accidental death caused by reckless driving; this was a deliberate act intended to harm several people with the car used as a weapon. Big, big difference. SFB, Yes, I posted earlier after failing to notice the pre-meditated murder part (& wasnt familiar with the circumstances surrounding the case) and you are right there is a big difference between the two offences....would you like me to chisel that out in blood or will you get over that. I actually clarified what I said in the very next post, after realising the errors of my way. Having said that, what I said had nothing to do with an 'Accidental Death' it was a case of Dangerous Driving which in that country is a criminal offence, a cateogry 1 offence, listed straight under Manslaughter....theres not that bigger difference now is there? Perhaps its only a matter of intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumonster Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Alternatively he could be immediately released on bail and never serve a day. he will not even see handcuffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Premeditated-murder is usually life, isn't it. The fact that the defendant had already paid some compensation to the injured is not a western practice. Maybe paying the judge some compensation would help. I also thought the defendant had a history of irrational behavior. Is he in jail now? He sounds like he'll eventually kill someone else. This penalty is far higher than it would be in my home-country so I cannot really complain about any leniency or them being soft on him. Oh, and premeditated isn't applicable here as it happened during an argument where one thing lead to another. There was no pre-planning involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave9988 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 the farang medical expert at the seen reported that he was in shock. but would that shock have been from before or after he did the deed? chances that it was an accident and not an act of rage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now