Why Thailand Retains Death Penalty?

[Briggsy]

This forum is about Thailand. Almost all East Asian and South East Asian countries retain and use the death penalty. It is an accepted part of the culture in these parts. There's little point trying to view Thailand and surrounding countries through a Western lens. You will get a distorted unclear picture.

This is a tempting view but a corollary of it is that you have to be remain silent about everything. What about 'honour killings'? That's at least as deep a part of the culture so presumably that's fine too. What about all persecution based on race, gender and sexuality? If killing people is OK because 'it's their culture' then killing people is OK because 'it's their culture' for whatever reason they happen to be killed - assuming it's an equally accepted part of the culture. And that's not something which many people want to agree with. And if you back up this argument with appeals to other arguments (to retribution, to prevention, etc) then you also let in arguments against the culture argument (the existence of universal rights to life, for example).

We are talking about the death penalty in Thailand.

We are not talking about honour killings in the Middle East and Pakistan.

We are not talking about persecution. Nor are we talking about extrajudicial execution.

I am not supporting the death penalty in Thailand.

You are looking at a from a Western perspective. If you want to discuss the death penalty in Thailand, you need to refer to the very hierarchical nature of society where everyone has a position and its legal coefficient sakdina.

[Garry9999]

This forum is about Thailand. Almost all East Asian and South East Asian countries retain and use the death penalty. It is an accepted part of the culture in these parts. There's little point trying to view Thailand and surrounding countries through a Western lens. You will get a distorted unclear picture.

This is a tempting view but a corollary of it is that you have to be remain silent about everything. What about 'honour killings'? That's at least as deep a part of the culture so presumably that's fine too. What about all persecution based on race, gender and sexuality? If killing people is OK because 'it's their culture' then killing people is OK because 'it's their culture' for whatever reason they happen to be killed - assuming it's an equally accepted part of the culture. And that's not something which many people want to agree with. And if you back up this argument with appeals to other arguments (to retribution, to prevention, etc) then you also let in arguments against the culture argument (the existence of universal rights to life, for example).

We are talking about the death penalty in Thailand.

We are not talking about honour killings in the Middle East and Pakistan.

We are not talking about persecution. Nor are we talking about extrajudicial execution.

I am not supporting the death penalty in Thailand.

You are looking at a from a Western perspective. If you want to discuss the death penalty in Thailand, you need to refer to the very hierarchical nature of society where everyone has a position and its legal coefficient sakdina.

Possibly Thailand is passed the "sakdina" system of the Ayuthya kingdom, then again, possibly not.

[Briggsy]

The sakdina system is very much alive and well. Wealth and payments have probably become a far more important part of it but there are examples every day of far more lenient punishment for people with higher social status.

[slapout]

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

Is this statement supposed to have some meaning from which a scientific/verifiable conclusion can be made? The only real statistic that has proven correct over the years, is once capital punishment is carried out, that recipient committed no more violent acts against society.

[needforspeed]

Time for me to stop playing about on here and do some work. Thanks for the conversation - it is an interesting topic.

One last point - this one against the death penalty and for the importance of saving life:

What if that criminal that was going to be killed, can rehabilitate and become a positive member of society? What if s/he can become a parent and bring up good kids? Or a community leader? Or someone that teaches other violent youth about the wrongs of that way of life? ....

What if....

Who is going to monitor this, as we know that many criminals after been released from prison falling back in there criminal behaviour, this as the criminal maybe change during his prison time, but the environment where he is going back after is still the same.

[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.

[manarak]

I'm not convinced the death penalty is useful, however I think it is the logical solution in some cases:

- particularly atrocious crimes with crushing evidence

- when people kill again after serving time (again crushing evidence required)

- serial killers

- mass murderers, including terrorists

- murderers who demonstrated total disrespect for other lives *1

- gratuitous murders, murders without motive *2

1* for example opening fire on a full restaurant terrace just to kill one person but spraying bullets everywhere.

2* I believe people who kill for gain can be "retrained" to behave better.

I don't believe murderers who killed for the pleasure or just to see "how it feels" can change their ways.

Quick execution incase of crushing evidence.

I see some advantages to put and end to those criminals' lives:

- less costs

- more space for others in prisons

- less wasted legal resources in pointless appeals

- better for victims

Of course, the risk of judicial error is horrendous, therefore only watertight cases should lead to execution.

Edited January 31, 2010 by manarak

[Gerontion]

We are talking about the death penalty in Thailand.

We are not talking about honour killings in the Middle East and Pakistan.

I said that the issues I mentioned were corollaries which are - or might be - entailed by your post - or at least how I understand your post, namely that we don't have any purchase on this because Thais are Thais and foreigners are foreigners and our moral judgements are bound up within those roles. If you have an opinion on a moral issue it's pretty normal to see how that opinion works out in other situations and use the results of that examination to make judgements on your original opinion. There are plenty of practices which whilst perfectly legal and reflecting deep-seated cultural opinions I would have difficulty supporting and I suspect that many others would feel the same. An obvious example would be the way women can legally be treated in many countries, where their rights can sometimes be no better than those of cattle. I'm not sure how it's possible to wash one's hands of responsibility when it comes to Thailand's executing a prisoner and not do so when some women gets lashed for being adulterous. I think the discomfort most people feel about this reflects the fact that the original proposition - as I understood it - is wrong, that is: an action's being legal and being in some way reflective of or coherent with a culture doesn't seem to make it acceptable.

[ronz28]

The death penalty definitely works. The murderer who is executed for killing an innocent victim will never kill again and the taxpayer won't be burdened with his upkeep. Death for the murderer is final and some lackey will never be able to let him out of jail in the future and enable him to resume his criminal nature.

[rixalex]

if your daughter was raped and murdered you would be happy he stayed in a jail in Thailand rather than a jail in europe.

If your daughter was raped and murdered you wouldn't be happy until you had personally strangled the life out of the perp (that probably wouldn't make you happy either), but is anyone advocating that the victim's family be allowed to determine punishment?

I don't think allowing emotions to decide justice is a great idea, satisfying though it may appear to be.

[Mosha]

Isn't that the system in some Arab countries?

[Westerner]

People who want to abolish the death penalty can pay for the scum bags upkeep.

The people who want to keep it pay for the bullets.

The accused families pay for the appeals.

I absolutely agree.

[MAJIC]

People who want to abolish the death penalty can pay for the scum bags upkeep.

The people who want to keep it pay for the bullets.

The accused families pay for the appeals.

Better still lets also have a Tax on all those Bleeding Heart Liberals,Politically Correct,and sponge brains who would have

our streets full up with early released Murderers,Rapists,Phedophiles, and human trash in their version of a free society,so

let them pay for their dangerous beliefs which are a threat to all normal people.

[Garry9999]

all normal people.

I would be interested to hear your definition of "normal people", someone who thinks and behaves like you perhaps?

[needforspeed]

if your daughter was raped and murdered you would be happy he stayed in a jail in Thailand rather than a jail in europe.

If your daughter was raped and murdered you wouldn't be happy until you had personally strangled the life out of the perp (that probably wouldn't make you happy either), but is anyone advocating that the victim's family be allowed to determine punishment?

I don't think allowing emotions to decide justice is a great idea, satisfying though it may appear to be.

For victims off this type of crimes emotions alway play a role, but i agree emotions and justice don't go together as this influence your way off thinking.

But where is the justice for the victims, they rather see a criminals like this been punished for there action than have the idea that he/she is walking around happily.

It would make you happy but is giving more rest so a victim so he/she can slowly recover.

That is the reason that i am in favour of the dead penalty, away with the criminal and a start to recovery for the victims.

As long as this criminals been alive victims been confrontated with this on a dailey base and this isn't in favour of ther process at all.

From my point off vieuw we need to look more into the lives of victims and change our justice system in favour of them.

[britmaveric]

Death Penalty is a great thing. Thailand should be applauded for its stance.

[Groongthep]

Better still lets also have a Tax on all those Bleeding Heart Liberals,Politically Correct,and sponge brains who would have

our streets full up with early released Murderers,Rapists,Phedophiles, and human trash in their version of a free society,so

let them pay for their dangerous beliefs which are a threat to all normal people.

I think the overwhelming majority of those who are against the death penalty still favor life imprisonment for the most dangerous criminals. I don't think there are nearly as many "bleeding heart liberals, politically correct, and sponge brains who would have our streets full up with early released murderers, rapists, phedophiles, and human trash in their version of a free society and are a threat to all normal people" as you think. I suspect you watch too much Fox "News".

It is true however that without the death penalty the right winger's beloved Jesus Christ would never have had the opportunity to be cruxified and die for our sins as they contend and hence we would all be doomed to hel_l. Wouldn't it have been a bitch if Pontious Pilate had given him life instead. We'd all be fcuked.

Get real.

[Garry9999]

It is true however that without the death penalty the right winger's beloved Jesus Christ would never have had the opportunity to be cruxified and die for our sins as they contend and hence we would all be doomed to hel_l. Wouldn't it have been a bitch if Pontious Pilate had given him life instead. We'd all be fcuked.

Classic

[philliphn]

If you kill some one else. Why should society have to pay your Bills for the rest of your life.

Also, you create a situation where people in Corrections have to work daily for inumerable years with very dangerous individuals who have little ot nothing to loose.

Edited February 1, 2010 by philliphn

[Garry9999]

If you kill some one else. Why should society have to pay your Bills for the rest of your life.

Also, you create a situation where people in Corrections have to work daily for inumerable years with very dangerous individuals who have little ot nothing to loose.

I guess it's a moral question. Do you have the right to kill a person that is already confined?

[philliphn]

If you kill some one else. Why should society have to pay your Bills for the rest of your life.

Also, you create a situation where people in Corrections have to work daily for inumerable years with very dangerous individuals who have little ot nothing to loose.

I guess it's a moral question. Do you have the right to kill a person that is already confined?

Why would it be immoral to execute some one just because they are already confined?

These perpertraitors had no right to kill an innocent Human Being and did so regardless! He or she showed no mercy.

I have worked with hundreds of convicted murderers for over 24 years. I also read their files. I don't feel sorry for any of them. You would be surprised how many hundreds of Murderers a State Correctional system accumulates over time. We would be better off without them!

[rixalex]

if your daughter was raped and murdered you would be happy he stayed in a jail in Thailand rather than a jail in europe.

If your daughter was raped and murdered you wouldn't be happy until you had personally strangled the life out of the perp (that probably wouldn't make you happy either), but is anyone advocating that the victim's family be allowed to determine punishment?

I don't think allowing emotions to decide justice is a great idea, satisfying though it may appear to be.

For victims off this type of crimes emotions alway play a role, but i agree emotions and justice don't go together as this influence your way off thinking.

But where is the justice for the victims, they rather see a criminals like this been punished for there action than have the idea that he/she is walking around happily.

It would make you happy but is giving more rest so a victim so he/she can slowly recover.

That is the reason that i am in favour of the dead penalty, away with the criminal and a start to recovery for the victims.

As long as this criminals been alive victims been confrontated with this on a dailey base and this isn't in favour of ther process at all.

From my point off vieuw we need to look more into the lives of victims and change our justice system in favour of them.

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.

[geriatrickid]

Somewhat odd that on one hand we will have people acknowledge that the police and judiciary in Thailand are not of high quality and yet they have the faith in these institutions to properly impose the death penalty.

I'm all for the death penalty subject to one condition that if someone is wrongfully executed, that all those that sent the condemned person to his or her death, and including those that allowed it to happen by giving their tacit approval in a forum like this, must also be executed. The death penalty is handed out too easily when there is no responsibility attached to the process, so please take responsibility for the ultimate penalty: Death.

[Mosha]

Make DNA testing compulsory, with the proviso the info is not available to health insurance companies. i.e. the information is to be used to solve crimes only.

[MAJIC]

all normal people.

I would be interested to hear your definition of "normal people", someone who thinks and behaves like you perhaps?

Normal people are safe to be on the streets without being a danger to others in any society.

Dont bother to reply im not taking the bait.

[BobMarleyWannabe]

I always wondered how a country that is overwelmingly buddhist can still use the death penalty as a form of punishment, but maybe they believe that life imprisonment brings on more suffering and that execution is more merciful and will free the mind from the body and will put an end to the physical suffering. OK I am reaching.

[Bilqis]

People who want to abolish the death penalty can pay for the scum bags upkeep.

The people who want to keep it pay for the bullets.

The accused families pay for the appeals.

The resulting reduced crime that accompanies a "no death penalty" policy actually saves money. US which has death penalty also has one of the highest per capita prison populations.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Bilqis

[Mosha]

It's the endless appeals that cost the money.

[dttk0009]

Too many innocent people have been put to death through capital punishment. The fact that even one innocent man was murdered by the government should speak out against it, yet people support it. It does not deter criminals nor does it reduce crime rates and serious offenses. I suppose some people simply love to see others die, or have hard-ons for retribution. I suppose I used to believe in it, but knowing that there's people out there who did nothing but good things in their life to die in the electric chair after spending a decade in a tiny cell makes me sick.

[way2muchcoffee]

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.

Edited February 3, 2010 by way2muchcoffee