why is a crime more serious at night???

sounds stupid!!!

how is it any different if something is stolen at night or in the day?? !!

funny strange system of law!!!

why is a crime more serious at night???

sounds stupid!!!

how is it any different if something is stolen at night or in the day?? !!

If you go back a few pages I had answered that question. It is due to the fact that, in the case of house burglaries (and apparently covers any theft), that somebody will more likely be at home resulting in a potential dangerous conflict if the thief is confronted. In other words, it's considered a more dangerous situation for the victims and the law takes that into account in sentencing.

some-noom-na

"Because the alleged crime took place at night, they will face more serious penalties than for daylight shoplifting if convicted.:???????? TIT

No not heard a word about it.

My secretary's son goes to the same school as the Aussie bar mat thief and she actually met her for the first time last week at a school function, her assessment of the tea leaf..."as rough as hessian underpants"

In most countries that use the British justice system any offence that happens between the hours of 9pm and 6am is considered to be a more serious offence...stealing as against shoplifting in this case!

The meaning of the phrase 'caveat emptor' is:- "that buyers must take responsibility for the quality of goods that they are buying".

Caveat emptor.....means "buyer beware"

Caveat emptor.....means "buyer beware"

I shall caveat King Power so much I'll never be an emptor there, nor shall I visit it.

Ever!

One post deleted

reason:

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy

3 little bottles of perfume for 22K?!? That is what I call THEFT

or is it also a scam?!?

Extract from a legal dictionary.

The requirement that the breaking and entering occur at night was an essential element of the offense (burglary) at common law. Sunrise and sunset were not the means of determining night and day. The proper test was whether the countenance of a human could be discerned by natural light.

Many jurisdictions no longer require that the offense occur at night. Some states have retained it for higher degrees of the offense, but do not require it for all degrees. Under statutes retaining the nighttime element, it is defined as occurring 30 minutes before sunrise or 30 minutes after sunset. It is not necessary that all acts be done on the same night. If the breaking and entering is done one night and the felony is committed a few nights later, the offense is committed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In UK common law entering premises during the daylight hours was a lesser offence known as breaking and entering. I believe that this law has now been amended to bring it under the more serious offence of burglary. I think that in the UK a felon who commits a burglary during daylight hours is sentenced more lightly than one using the cover of darkness and if this is so then in practice a distinction is still made.

It would seem that Thailand still deems the time of day that any offence is perpetrated is relevant. I cannot see any logic in this distinction in the case of shoplifting but TIT. Logic couldn't get a visa so was refused entry.

If the bail had not been paid, and it's a lot totalling 130,000 Baht for the pair of 'em, how long would they have remained incarcerated and under what conditions?

What weight of evidence is required to keep them on remand and who makes this decision?

If, at the trial, they were found innocent, what compensation, if any, would they receive for their loss of liberty on remand and damage to their health from a prolonged stay in a Thai prison?

Would the fact that they had been held on remand sway the judge to find them guilty to avoid any repercussions about holding minors on remand?

Is there in fact any option for these two and for all the others in the same situation to cough up bail usually totalling a 6-figure sum in Baht and then plead guilty to avoid being held in very dangerous and unsanitary conditions for months on end whilst a very lengthy trial process slowly trundles on?

The laws that need to be followed are the laws of the country they are in. I don't know if Thailand views a 16 year old girl with a 21 year old man in the same manner.

Thai laws apply.....absolutely.

If the bail had not been paid, and it's a lot totalling 130,000 Baht for the pair of 'em, how long would they have remained incarcerated and under what conditions?

What weight of evidence is required to keep them on remand and who makes this decision?

If, at the trial, they were found innocent, what compensation, if any, would they receive for their loss of liberty on remand and damage to their health from a prolonged stay in a Thai prison?

Would the fact that they had been held on remand sway the judge to find them guilty to avoid any repercussions about holding minors on remand?

Is there in fact any option for these two and for all the others in the same situation to cough up bail usually totalling a 6-figure sum in Baht and then plead guilty to avoid being held in very dangerous and unsanitary conditions for months on end whilst a very lengthy trial process slowly trundles on?

They should be screaming for consular assistance from the Australian Embassy.