Western Justice Is Just As Bad

[IanForbes]

True justice is a difficult thing to enforce. There are too many human factors to consider. It shouldn't just be a revenge thing. Justice needs to be strong enough to be a deterent, and not so harsh that the person has no chance of rehabilitation. Very often, murder is a "one off", meaning it was something done in the heat of the moment by a slightly deranged person at the time, and is unlikely to happen again. Unfortunately, many prejudices are brought into court, and court officials, including judges, act on their own human feelings rather than the facts. Jails in Thailand are far harsher than jails in Canada and would be much more of a deterent to crime. Unfortunately, desperate people do desperate things in the heat of an argument and they don't stop to think about the results of their own actions. That is why courts separate manslaughter from first and second degree murder. That is nothing new, but there's no question that rich people with influence get preferential treatment in a court of law. That is why the nasty offspring of some influential people sometimes get off with a much lighter sentence than someone who is poor. Expensive lawyers tend to get more people off than the court appointed lawyers.

[Wallaby]

Seems like a standard sentence for the crime he was guilty of. He wasn't done for murder, it was manslaughter, they hold a much less sentence.

[dannyman]

Thank's IanForbes,all these chefs on this post should come on over to Canada.I beleive this post is about justice in CANADA.I feel for the Thai family that lost there son. Thank-you frozenpuck

[StreetCowboy]

PEOPLE are not apples or oranges or butter or bread ! CANADA justice system is a disgrace. Before you mouth off on a person that is telling you a fact here in Canada be QUIET !

Peas and Carrots?

Shhhhhh!

Yorkshire pudding and roast beef?

Now you've taken the whole thread off topic.

I suppose we're all of us trying to get to a better place.

Porridge and congee might be a more relevant comparison and closer to topic. But sadly all too comparable.

Maybe fruit and nuts?

SC

Edit: on the topic of porridge, others have said this: Viktor Bout Says Comparing Thai And US Jails Is Like Comparing A Zoo And A Mental Hospital

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thaivisa.com%2Fforum%2Ftopic%2F430732-viktor-bout-says-comparing-thai-and-us-jails-is-like-comparing-a-zoo-and-a-mental-hospital%2F&h=21770&site=www.thaivisa.com&type=R&plugin=A&social=false&pos=2%2F3&signature=&api_key=138163969552547&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thaivisa.com%2Fforum%2F&cb=2

On the more general topic of crime and punishment, maybe bile and spleen? Or mercy and rain?

[StreetCowboy]

HEY moonraker your funny! Hope you never have this happen to your family.

What? Receive short custodial sentences?

We should be so lucky...

I am sure if it had happened in Thailand, they would have gone away for a very long time, and for sure that would have brought the deceased back.

Punishing the guilty does no good to the victim, and unless it is an effective deterrent, serves no purpose other than to satisfy the spleen of the morally indignant. It's very old testament.SC

Say what ??? So, according to you, it is okay if we don't punish killers, rapists, etc. because the crime that was done cannot be un-done ?! Gees !

I think I fully agree with the OP. Sad outcome ! The murderer should have been given a lot harsher sentence !

Why should the killer have been given a harsher sentence? For whose benefit?

He was not a murderer, he was guilty of man-slaughter. In Canada, like most common law jurisdictions, a man is considered innocent of crimes he has not been convicted of.

The harsh sentences meted out in Thailand serve little benefit in a country where so few people, native and foreign, think about the consequences of their actions. Most lessons that need to be learnt in prison can be learnt reasonably quickly, while the incarceration will continue to damage a man's spirit further and further as the years progress.

Few of us adequately research the farthest consequences of our crimes before we commit them... for example - what is the worst punishment for speeding? And would your estimation of that be adjusted, if I asked you to consider what is the worst punishment for speeding when the death of a child is involved? BUt these thoughts do not run through our minds when we hurry home, nor when one puts a knife in one's pocket on the way to a night out. The Thai gentleman in question was killed because his assailant was carrying a knife, and it is that decision (to carry a knife) that should have been severely punished (IMHO).

I once met a man who committed crimes with the sole aim of achieving incarceration, since he felt he could not live outside an institution, but was still deemed too sane for an asylum.

SC

[JemJem]

HEY moonraker your funny! Hope you never have this happen to your family.

What? Receive short custodial sentences?

We should be so lucky...

I am sure if it had happened in Thailand, they would have gone away for a very long time, and for sure that would have brought the deceased back.

Punishing the guilty does no good to the victim, and unless it is an effective deterrent, serves no purpose other than to satisfy the spleen of the morally indignant. It's very old testament.SC

Say what ??? So, according to you, it is okay if we don't punish killers, rapists, etc. because the crime that was done cannot be un-done ?! Gees !

I think I fully agree with the OP. Sad outcome ! The murderer should have been given a lot harsher sentence !

Why should the killer have been given a harsher sentence? For whose benefit?

He was not a murderer, he was guilty of man-slaughter. In Canada, like most common law jurisdictions, a man is considered innocent of crimes he has not been convicted of.

The harsh sentences meted out in Thailand serve little benefit in a country where so few people, native and foreign, think about the consequences of their actions. Most lessons that need to be learnt in prison can be learnt reasonably quickly, while the incarceration will continue to damage a man's spirit further and further as the years progress.

Few of us adequately research the farthest consequences of our crimes before we commit them... for example - what is the worst punishment for speeding? And would your estimation of that be adjusted, if I asked you to consider what is the worst punishment for speeding when the death of a child is involved? BUt these thoughts do not run through our minds when we hurry home, nor when one puts a knife in one's pocket on the way to a night out. The Thai gentleman in question was killed because his assailant was carrying a knife, and it is that decision (to carry a knife) that should have been severely punished (IMHO).

I once met a man who committed crimes with the sole aim of achieving incarceration, since he felt he could not live outside an institution, but was still deemed too sane for an asylum.

SC

For the things in in bold : You realise that such cases are very rare, don't you ?

As for the other things you wrote : So, you advocate minimal punishement for crimes ? And, what kind of statement is 'We have to punish the decision to carry a knife, rather than punishing the stabber' Well, you didn't exactly write that but I think you implied that clearly above.

For <deleted>'s sake, a person was killed. He lost the biggest thing in life.....HIS LIFE ! And, imagine the grief and also financial disadvantages his family will suffer for a very long time.

If murderers are put away in jail for a long time, there will be the sense of justice done felt by majortiy of people. And, another advantage : most potential murderers will think twice, three times, ten times before commiting the crime and most probably won't do it, when they know that a heavy sentence is awaiting them if caught. The case you wrote in bold above is very very rare, man.

And, don't think that I am a hard-core right-wing conservative. In fact, I am quite the opposite. But when it comes to murder for example, my opininon is clear (very very stiff punishment).

Yes, according to my opinion, more jails have to be built. Governments should build them and also, spend more on the incarceration system overall. They can cut down on frickin' militarist expenditures (considerable amount of money goes to arms dealers/sellers...only a tiny fraction of that money would be enough for plenty of jails).

Murder is a serious, terrible crime....and must be punished harshly.

[Wallaby]

He wasn't convicted of murder. The sentence he got for manslaughter is pretty standard.

[StreetCowboy]

He wasn't convicted of murder. The sentence he got for manslaughter is pretty standard.

And if he'd not been carrying a knife, he'd probably not have committed man-slaughter either.

And if he'd thought he had a good chance of going down for two - three years, he'd have probably reconsidered.

No-one (almost) speeds or drinks and drives after consideration of a "death by reckless driving" charge, though they may continue to offend after they have had points on their licence from preventive policing arrests for what motorists perceive as minor offences;

and in this case, perhaps the assailant considered the penalties for assault or robbery (though more likely he did not).

SC

[Moonrakers]

A friend of mine in the UK went to prison for 2 1/2 years for manslaughter. It was a brawl outside a pub, he hit the other guy who fell over backwards and hit his head on the curb, killing him.

Of course my friend had no intention of killing him but every intention of hitting him. The local press made my friend out to be a cold blooded murderer,

It's a subject with many shades of grey.

[StreetCowboy]

A friend of mine in the UK went to prison for 2 1/2 years for manslaughter. It was a brawl outside a pub, he hit the other guy who fell over backwards and hit his head on the curb, killing him.

Of course my friend had no intention of killing him but every intention of hitting him. The local press made my friend out to be a cold blooded murderer,

It's a subject with many shades of grey.

Easily done and one does not need to lose sympathy for the family of the deceased to still have some sympathy for the accused.

Often-times, judges make wiser decisions than internet bigots, but presumably journalists feel that "Justice was fairly served after a mundane street-brawl ended in unfortunate tragedy" does not make a good story.

And yet in fact, it would be a far better story, since it would be one to which we - as basically law-abiding but possibly hot-headed members of society - could relate to and learn from.

I am often surprised at the propensity to violence that apparently sensible posters claim on this forum.

SC

[IanForbes]

A friend of mine in the UK went to prison for 2 1/2 years for manslaughter. It was a brawl outside a pub, he hit the other guy who fell over backwards and hit his head on the curb, killing him.

Of course my friend had no intention of killing him but every intention of hitting him. The local press made my friend out to be a cold blooded murderer,

It's a subject with many shades of grey.

I know two guys in Canada who did the same amount of time for first degree murder. I know three murderers in Canada who are walking around scot free. The justice system is kind of screwed up.

[dancw3]

You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend

Could you expand on that?

Yes. All this vague "apples and oranges" and "bread and butter" and I haven't a clue as to what your talking about.

[IanForbes]

You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend

Could you expand on that?

Yes. All this vague "apples and oranges" and "bread and butter" and I haven't a clue as to what your talking about.

What we are talking about is trying to use generalities to prove a specific point. It happens all the time in debates. What some of us are doing by using the apples and oranges argument is trying to lighten it up a bit and not make people so hostile to another view point. The OP was making a point that Justice in Canada is no better than justice in Thailand. He has a good point, but it's only one case and doesn't prove anything. Unless we were actually there, none of us has all the facts. And, even the facts can get twisted. That is why we have lawyers... to twist the facts even further to confuse everyone. That is why we have judges and jurors to UN-twist the lawyer's argument.

[Zodiac]

Note the report reads:

"Provincial Court Judge Shelagh Creagh agreed to a joint submission from Crown and defence lawyers to incarcerate Michael John Stewart for six years after he pleaded to manslaughter and robbery."

Another way of saying he was likely charged with murder but the prosecution went along with a plea of guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter and the judge accepted this so they did not proceed with the murder charge.

Quite outrageous. This was a killing done in the course of a robbery and had it gone to a jury to decide the liklihood is he would be convicted of murder.

The prosecution ought never to have accepted the plea of guilty to the lesser charge.

I agree with the OP:

its a joke, and where's the justice?

[Moonrakers]

You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend

Could you expand on that?

Yes. All this vague "apples and oranges" and "bread and butter" and I haven't a clue as to what your talking about.

What we are talking about is trying to use generalities to prove a specific point. It happens all the time in debates. What some of us are doing by using the apples and oranges argument is trying to lighten it up a bit and not make people so hostile to another view point. The OP was making a point that Justice in Canada is no better than justice in Thailand. He has a good point, but it's only one case and doesn't prove anything. Unless we were actually there, none of us has all the facts. And, even the facts can get twisted. That is why we have lawyers... to twist the facts even further to confuse everyone. That is why we have judges and jurors to UN-twist the lawyer's argument.

Ian

The apples and oranges thing mean that the two cannot be compared....... try comparing an apple to an orange, you can't.

Likewise the Thai and Canadian justice systems cannot be compared because they are two completely different things, to compare the two would be as pointless as comparing apples and oranges.

[doggie888888]

No system is perfect...but if I'd rather be subjected to the rule of law in UK/Canada/Australia (imperfect as they all are) than to the legal system here.

[IanForbes]

Ian

The apples and oranges thing mean that the two cannot be compared....... try comparing an apple to an orange, you can't.

Likewise the Thai and Canadian justice systems cannot be compared because they are two completely different things, to compare the two would be as pointless as comparing apples and oranges.

Exactly. That is why some folks here were joking around saying things like, peas and carrots, or Yorkshire pudding and roast beet.. Canadian courts often accept the plea of a lesser charge to save the court's time and the possibility of not winning a case. Is it wrong in many cases? Certainly, but that is why many citizens don't have much use for our system. Is it better or worse than Thailand? That depends on a case by case debate. In a lot of cases I'd much prefer a convicted person to spend time in a Thai jail rather than a Canadian one.

By the way, you CAN compare apples to oranges. Both are fruit from trees. Both fruit are green when immature but change colour as they mature. Both fruit taste better as they mature, but will fall from the tree when they are over ripe and rot. Both have an outer skin and have multiple seeds for growing new trees. But, the similarity ends about there.

There are similarities between Thai courts and Canadian courts. There is a judge, there are juries and there are lawyers. Wealthy people with smart lawyers or political connections tend to get iighter sentences than poor people with no lawyer, or a court appointed one.