Why Thailand Retains Death Penalty?

[hawthorne]

Yes absolutely for the death penalty. Unfortunately in the US too many convicted people are now being proven innocent after serving many years in jail.

How many innocent people are killed?

That is the problem I have with it. Maybe the death penalty is easier than spending life in prison.

[Mosha]

The trouble is in "civilised" countries life isn't life. They're fed, clothed, etc.. Meanwhile there are pensioners in my "civilised" country, who can hardly afford to heat one room of their homes in winter. Growing old is a crime these days.

[CHINWA]

I think prisons should become self sufficient so they are no burden to the tax payer. Let the prisoners raise their own food and produce something that generates cash but does not compete with businesses. Not sure what that would be but it seems like they could come up with something. License plates?

Forcing prisoners to work would be more scary than the death penalty. Some poster wrote, it is difficult to explain to people why should a guy who kill or rape a child be condemned to die. Is there any other adequate punishment?

[reallyok]

I expect everyone has their own personal thoughts, myself included.

It has always concerned me that they might not have the right person, consequently putting someone to death who is innocent, there is no going back when you are dead.

I feel the same, there have been many executions of the wrong person who seemed to be guilty at the time, and were later proven innocent ........................too late then !

[reallyok]

As a retired prison guard, I am defitinitely in favor of death penalty. I never met one who wasn't. I wonder how people who oppose it would feel about death penalty if it was their family who was murdered. Actually, if someone killed or raped someone in my family, they would receive death penalty anyway if I found them first, and I would deal with the consequences. One thing is certain, whether or not death penalty is a deterrent is debatable, but one thing is certain. The killer who gets executed will definitely be deterred. As far as life in prison, I worked with female prison guard who was killed by this animal in prison who was doing life for killing several people before.

Also, for the person who say to compare crime rate in US with other countries and this will prove capital punishment doesn't work. Apparently he hasn't really done this himself. Just spouting the usual propaganda, as there are many countries with higher crime rate than the US.

However, even though I support death penalty, even I do not think it should be doen for ecology to save animals and trees.

Yes Tomahawk, and how would feel if your son was executed for a crime and later proved innocent !

[sokal]

The death penalty is barbaric and the sooner Thailand does away with it, the better. Of course, the atrocious conditions in Thai prisons also have to be addressed.

The death penalty makes sense. It is the ultimate deterrent

I have always wondered why seemingly law abiding citizens like maybe yourself, have a problem with hard line policies like the death penalty ?

[toptuan]

check the U.S. of A, in the states where they re- introduced the death penalty, the incidences of murder go UP with the death penalty, NOT down

signed: perplexing

Defies logic, doesn't it?

Therefore, we know the so-called studies are skewed by left-leaning social scientists who are willing to manhandle statistics to sway the sheep.

[Huey]

Personally I think The Thais have it right. Some crimes deserve death as a punishment.

[toptuan]

Also different - Western countries have developed a culture based around personal freedoms and rights. So in that backdrop, executing an individual is the ultimate 'injustice'.

In Thailand and Asia in general, there is still a culture that values family and community over individual (although it is changing). Within that background removing a harmful individual for the good of society seems to make some sense.

But if a harmful individual is incarcerated, they are no longer a threat to society, therefore there is no need to execute them.

Hmmm, need to stop and think about that blanket statement. No longer a threat to society?

Oh really? Have you checked the homicide rates in prisons?

Still a threat.

And it'd be a shame if they killed someone incarcerated only for theft or for political reasons, wouldn't it?

[tijnebijn]

Personally I think The Thais have it right. Some crimes deserve death as a punishment.

I'm not really for the death penalty , but can't help myself if I read about paedophiles ,

they do deserve it more then everybody , so I'm for the death penalty for every paedophile in Thailand when catched ,

would learn them to come and top those kids , bastards they all are .

Edited February 13, 2010 by tijnebijn

[toptuan]

I have a problem with the thought that a government would be so arrogant to presume that it owns somebody's life.

Dude, your head is so in the clouds.

That is EXACTLY what every government on earth presumes when it conscripts a young man for military duty (or even when he volunteers).

They OWN you, and when they say "pay with your life!" it becomes your immediate obligation!

Expendable individuals for the good of the group.

It's natural science.

It's evolution.

It's the ethical dilemma which will never be resolved.

Perhaps your statement was expressing the ideal (Utopia perhaps) rather than reality?

Edited February 13, 2010 by toptuan

[LomSak27]

I suspect that thailand is ... like ... an independent country that does what it wants to. What I think about the Death Penalty, what the EU thinks, or Amnesty International is meaningless. What Thais think about the Death Penalty counts.

[rixalex]

All very good points nfs. Your argument of capital punishment on the basis of allowing the victim to move on in their life is for me far more compelling than the argument of deterrence or revenge.

The argument may be compelling but it raises many difficult questions.

What if the relatives of the victim do not believe in the death penalty and prefer that the killer spend life in prison?

What if the various relatives are divided in their opinion on this?

Is a wife's vote more important than a child's or mother' or brother's or sister's?

Who should decide, the state or the bereaved?

Is it appropriate, within legal frameworks, for the families of the victims to make this decision?

In what ways should other crime victims be given a more active role in the sentencing phase of the judicial process?

How is a family member's life improved by the execution of the killer of a loved one?

Can this be measured? How could this be studied objectively?

What does 'improved' mean?

Will it still be 'improved' if the family member is given power the life or death of another human?

I can't except the argument based on just those issues above, and I'm sure there are more.

All valid points w2mc. nfs's argument was more compelling than others i have heard, but i agree, capital punishment creates more potential problems than it solves.

[Colabamumbai]

Canada still has the death penalty but the last time if was carried out was in the 1950's in Toronto. I was a young man and stood outside the Don Jail and watched people protest it. I may be incorrect but I think it was 2 bank robbers and they may have killed a policeman. The Boyd Gang. It was on the books to try and prevent people from killing cops. Canada also a 14 year jail sentence for break and enter, on the books, but in my 59 years I have never seen the anyone sentenced to that length of time. It used to be that your home was your castle. My memory is as old as me. It may prevent some premeditated murders. Life sentences with no parole for 25 years seem to be the norm for first degree murder.

[astral]

Having been to Saudi Arabia and seen someone beheaded,

I have so say that public execution does focus the mind on the consequences............

[britmaveric]

^like the good old days in UK, beheading and hangings!! The problem these days - the public never sees it, shame since I think that alone would be a deterrent to stay the straight and narrow for most people.

[moetownblues]

They should keep it and I wish we had it in Australia we have people like Martin Bryant being lovingly cared for by society. The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree which claimed the lives of 35 people and wounded 21 others

The Port Arthur massacre remains Australia's deadliest killing spree and one of the deadliest such incidents worldwide in recent times.

There are a lot of people in this world that for some strange reason think that the right of mass murderers and criminals have priority over those of victims and every law abiding person. Strange thinking if you ask me. Yes I vote to keep the death penalty in Thailand and bring it back worldwide.

[TerryM]

I am not opposed to it.

As long as it is used sparingly as it seems to be in Thailand.

And of course I am worried about them getting the wrong person - but also as stated, in Thailand it is mainly applied to "slam dunks" as far as I know.

So it is different to the way it is used in USA or previously in Australia.

Also different - Western countries have developed a culture based around personal freedoms and rights. So in that backdrop, executing an individual is the ultimate 'injustice'.

In Thailand and Asia in general, there is still a culture that values family and community over individual (although it is changing). Within that background removing a harmful individual for the good of society seems to make some sense.

And also in the back of my mind, I have grave concerns that the planet is very much overpopulated. Although killing criminals to fix this problem does seem barbaric - the fact still remains that we will need to learn, at some stage soon, how to reduce the human population. So violent criminals are not putting themselves in a favourable position. How many animals or trees have to die, or how much of the environment has to be destroyed to keep that criminal in prison all their lives? Is it worth it? As the environment becomes more fragile and more precious - the answer to this question surely swings further away from the importance of a violent and destructive human life.

AUSTRALIA ABANDONED THE DEATH PENALTY IN 1967- THE U.S.A IN MOST OF THEIR STATES STILL HAS IT. THE REASON WHY AUSTRALIA GOT-RID-OF IT WAS... TO MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE HANGED.

[Garry9999]

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.

It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Garry9999

[dominique355]

For the death penalty

With the technology available today, most

cases for the death penalty are slam dunks.

Why burden the tax payer?

Serious studies show that the death penalty as compared to life sentence, costs MORE to society, so this is no argument in favor of capital punishment.

Crime rate in jurisdictions with death penalty show that death penalty is no deterrent, in the contrary.

Personally I always wondered how the USA can claim to be the defender of human rights and at the same time not respect the most basic human right, i.e. the right to live. It is wrong to kill, whether you are a single person, an army unit or a government.

Death penalty is not justice, it's revenge.

I would like to know how it costs more to keep a dead person than take care of a prisoner perhaps for life. or are you saying we will all feel bad about it, putting someone permanently to sleep ?.

You are probably right about the death penalty not being a deterrent because most killers are brain dead in the first place, to commit such hainous crimes.

In UK, many murderers are out on the street in 10 years with good behaviour, mainly cos we have an overcrowded prison system, and some kill again. Do you think thats fair for the victims family.

Wrong for an army to kill, if we all thought like you the free world would be speaking different languages now. My 88 year old dad had to fight and do stuff he didn't want to do for our freedom and safety, just something that had to be done.

For me to put murderers back on the street is taking away our safety.

Lastly, you sound like one of those "Liberals" who if in power would bring your country to it's knee's, no back bone.

About the cost of a death penalty I recommend http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty or simply google "Cost of death sentence". I would believe not many people know these figures.

On a more general note, punishment for a crime is not about making victims feel better. That's revenge. Criminal punishment has two element: general prevention and special prevention.

General prevention means that other people should be deterred from doing the same.

Special prevention means the criminal himself (or herself) should be deterred from doing it again.

I think we all agree that capital punishment (cp) is the ultimate special prevention.

Statistics also show that cp does not do a good job at general prevention.

And I don't think we would all speak the same language, because if no army would kill, that would also apply to attacking and invading armies. "Freedom" and "safety" are way too often used as a pretext for offensive military actions. The USA in Iraq is the best example of such abuse of "Freedom" and "safety".

About putting criminals back on the street, just a thought: People can change. Or would you believe that all criminals are born criminals?

If they can change in one direction, they probably can also change in the other.

Education or re-education is the alternative to destroying. Or perhaps even prevention.

Oh yeah, there is this ultimate American insult: "liberal" . Well it's no insult to me, because for me as a European, "liberal" stems from "libertas" (freedom). And I am very much in favor of the freedom of the individual and the responsibility of each for himself. And as such I defend myself against any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.