Thai Cabinet Okays Bail Funds For Jailed Red Shirts

[Buchholz]

Sad pathetic and immoral.

Not really. It is allowed under the law and quite legal. The Thai law takes into consideration that many poor people do not have the means to post bail. these people have been in captivity for quite some time haven't they? They are being held without due process, i.e. no trial. That's the immoral and pathetic part. An accused should be given due process in a timely manner. The Thai system is meant to compensate for the long periods before a trial occurs, where an accused might otherwise remain in prison for a year or more before the trial.

Except the process is being utilized highly selectively. ALL Thais accused of crimes or indicted can face long pre-trial confinement. ALL poor Thais not making bail for any crime can look forward to a lengthy stay.

The bail funds are not inexhaustible. The limited amount is being targeted specifically for bailing Red Shirts. Many other poor non-Red Shirts will miss out on the same opportunity.

Where are the Red Shirts and their much ballyhooed and vaunted "Double-Standards" ?

.

[geriatrickid]

Out of that jumble, are there countries where specifically the government is both the prosecutor and bail bondsman for the charges that government is prosecuting?

The practice of allowing a third party to provide a bail bond with a small down payment is in effect the contracting out of the service so that the legal aid funds in the state would not otherwise be burdened with the requirement of ensuring due process for the poor. However, as I explained, the fact that some states do not require forfeiture on many bonds effectively means that the bond has been granted at no cost if the the person on bond was on a payment plan. Keep in mind that any losses incurred by a bail bondsman are considered a business loss and cost of doing business. Such costs and losses can be applied against earnings. If earnings are reduced, then there are less taxes paid by the bonding company. It is an indirect subsidy. However, the key point is that the function of responding to the bail requirement is transferred from the state legal aid fund to the bail bond company. If there were no bail bondsmen, legal aid in many cases would have to pay the costs.

[Buchholz]

I thought they idea of bail was as an incentive for those charged to turn up at court at the right time.

What incentive do these people have to turn up if other peoples money is being used for bail?

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

At the drop of a hat, the Red Shirt Leaders had no trouble coming up with 4, 5, and 6 million baht in cash for their bail.

The rank and file have been abandoned by their leadership.... as several lengthy threads have previously highlighted.

None of the Red Shirt millionaires and millionaire Pheu Thai Party MP's and millionaire Cabinet ministers can come up with some baht for the people that got them into their positions????

No, leave it to the governmental institutions (AKA taxpayers) that the Red Shirts attacked to come up with the baht..

.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

That statement was made by Buchholz. Why refer to him as John? If that is his real name, you are breaking forum rules about revealing personal information of other members. If that isn't his real name, you are accusing him of being somebody he isn't.

[Buchholz]

Out of that jumble, are there countries where specifically the government is both the prosecutor and bail bondsman for the charges that government is prosecuting?

The practice of allowing a third party to provide a bail bond with a small down payment is in effect the contracting out of the service so that the legal aid funds in the state would not otherwise be burdened with the requirement of ensuring due process for the poor. However, as I explained, the fact that some states do not require forfeiture on many bonds effectively means that the bond has been granted at no cost if the the person on bond was on a payment plan. Keep in mind that any losses incurred by a bail bondsman are considered a business loss and cost of doing business. Such costs and losses can be applied against earnings. If earnings are reduced, then there are less taxes paid by the bonding company. It is an indirect subsidy. However, the key point is that the function of responding to the bail requirement is transferred from the state legal aid fund to the bail bond company. If there were no bail bondsmen, legal aid in many cases would have to pay the costs.

Is that a no then, to my question?

[tlansford]

- sniper -

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

Ah <deleted>, just lock 'em up and throw away the key - that's what we farang do in our countries... right?

from discover Thailand article : this fund is for everyone, lest some gov't haters claim it is only for red shirts.

The fund was set up in August 2006 to help people with financial problems fight their cases in court. Aid provided includes payment of court fees, a free lawyer to represent them in their case, a surety for temporary release and expenses for forensic science work that may be needed to help them in their case.

...

''The money is not a grant,'' ... those who won their cases had to be responsible for ensuring whoever they defeated in the court battle reimbursed the fund.

And the article says that the fund is also for foreigners.

http://www.discovert...ad.php?tid=2466

At least in the USA, if not in your countries, people have the right to legal defense as well as a speedy trial.

Please explain to me how that equates to the govt. posting bond for the defendant?

The justice fund provides financial support to people in Thailand who cannot otherwise afford it. This includes lawyer fees and bail. It is created and funded by the government.

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?

[tlansford]

I thought they idea of bail was as an incentive for those charged to turn up at court at the right time.

What incentive do these people have to turn up if other peoples money is being used for bail?

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

At the drop of a hat, the Red Shirt Leaders had no trouble coming up with 4, 5, and 6 million baht in cash for their bail.

The rank and file have been abandoned by their leadership.... as several lengthy threads have previously highlighted.

None of the Red Shirt millionaires and millionaire Pheu Thai Party MP's and millionaire Cabinet ministers can come up with some baht for the people that got them into their positions????

No, leave it to the governmental institutions (AKA taxpayers) that the Red Shirts attacked to come up with the baht..

.

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

[tlansford]

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

With regards being in jail for two years without trial, that is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with. I don't think however that having the tax-payer pay for bail is the solution. Also, why should either red or yellow shirts be singled out for special help? Why are they better or more deserving than all the others jailed and awaiting trial that exist in the system?

Agree with you completely on the long detentions - That is "Amazing Thailand". In this case, the red-shirts and yellow-shirts are not singled out (as far as I can tell). The Justice Fund is open to everyone, requires a request, requests are reviewed and approved or rejected, etc, etc... This is even available to foreigners in Thailand. It was created by the government in 2006 and is financed by the government. In the USA, if you cannot afford a lawyer, a lawyer is provided by the State - in other words, the tax payers pay. Bail options vary from State to State, and could be considered not very effective in some places. But the US is one of the few places apparently which still primarily use bail bondsmen. I wasn't aware of that before ...

[Buchholz]

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail.

Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors.

* A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. *

.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

That statement was made by Buchholz. Why refer to him as John? If that is his real name, you are breaking forum rules about revealing personal information of other members. If that isn't his real name, you are accusing him of being somebody he isn't.

Sigh,Nolstagia isn't what it used to be

[Buchholz]

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

At the drop of a hat, the Red Shirt Leaders had no trouble coming up with 4, 5, and 6 million baht in cash for their bail.

The rank and file have been abandoned by their leadership.... as several lengthy threads have previously highlighted.

None of the Red Shirt millionaires and millionaire Pheu Thai Party MP's and millionaire Cabinet ministers can come up with some baht for the people that got them into their positions????

No, leave it to the governmental institutions (AKA taxpayers) that the Red Shirts attacked to come up with the baht..

.

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

That, as yet, no one can seem to cite any other country where the government charges criminals and simultaneously provides the bail money for them to be freed on the charges that the government has charged them with.

btw, it is "paid for" by the taxpayers of Thailand and the Red Shirt Leaders have the "means".... many times over.

They've been ditched by those that they are in jail for.

.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

I don't think anyone has a problem with people being given support to provide them legal representation, but support to provide them bail is quite another thing. The whole idea of bail is to allow people freedom but with some sort of assurance of their return to court. I don't see how, if people are given the money, there is any assurance whatsoever.

And where does it all stop? If you are saying that it is unfair for a poor man to be kept in jail because he can't afford 100,000 baht bail, surely it is equally as unfair to keep a well off man, who can't afford 10 million baht bail, behind bars. Basically anyone who can't afford bail should, following your argument, be provided with the money for bail. Forgive me for saying this, but seems a complete nonsense to me.

Deal with the problem of court cases taking so long, sure. Don't start letting people free with no incentive, should they be guilty, for them to return.

[Buchholz]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

That statement was made by Buchholz. Why refer to him as John? If that is his real name, you are breaking forum rules about revealing personal information of other members. If that isn't his real name, you are accusing him of being somebody he isn't.

+ 1

probably just ...

a childish comment.

[tlansford]

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail.

Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors.

* A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. *

.

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ???

As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

[rixalex]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

That statement was made by Buchholz. Why refer to him as John? If that is his real name, you are breaking forum rules about revealing personal information of other members. If that isn't his real name, you are accusing him of being somebody he isn't.

Sigh,Nolstagia isn't what it used to be

But trolling clearly is.

[David48]

Ok guys … I’ve read your arguments on the pros and cons of the bail system here in Thailand and whether or not there are similar systems around the world.

What disturbs me is not the mechanics of the bail/bond system, but the principle of the request.

Now, the ‘Rights and Liberties Protection Department’, which is assumed an independent government department entrusted with the Rights, Liberties and Protection of ALL Thais is planning to exhaust not only it’s present allocation and budget balance in the “Justice” fund but also request additional funds to favour a particular group (jailed red shirt protestors) … have I got this understanding correct?

Irrelevant of your political persuasion you would have to concede that this action would be to the determinant of all Thais who are currently incarcerated and awaiting trial and their hope for an early release, pre-trial through the Justice Fund, has now been extinguished for the foreseeable future (the fund will have no budget monies after this request).

In the spirit of reconciliation would that action (the specific targeting of a political group for special treatment) be support by all Thais?

Is it right?

Is it fair?

Is it a double standard?

edit change (font)

Edited January 11, 2012 by David48

[prefabs]

One would imagine that Thailand's remand prisons will be very empty in a short time. Unless people on remand for other crimes such as drugs, theft, housebreaking, driving offences are not included in this scenario. I can see a rush of claims from the government to get everyone let out quickly, now that the precedent has been set and publicised big time.

Or was there a precedent before these cases we never heard about?

[whybother]

Can I get some of this? I've just had to provide 90K for my FIL because he somehow came into possession of 3 dodgy 20 baht notes. He could have been in jail for a couple of months just because someone gave him some dodgy change.

I thought the red shirts were fighting against double standards!!! My @rse.

[OzMick]

If the red shirts don't like their friends being held without bail, they should a protest outside city hall - preferably one that they didn't torch.

At least, they should have the full attention of the officials inside.............and several other departments (fire, police, ambulance...)

[Buchholz]

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail.

Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors.

* A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. *

.

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ???

As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing.

The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government.

In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else...

despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue.

.

[Buchholz]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

That statement was made by Buchholz. Why refer to him as John? If that is his real name, you are breaking forum rules about revealing personal information of other members. If that isn't his real name, you are accusing him of being somebody he isn't.

Sigh,Nolstagia isn't what it used to be

But trolling clearly is.

+ 1

.

[Buchholz]

Ok guys … I’ve read your arguments on the pros and cons of the bail system here in Thailand and whether or not there are similar systems around the world.

What disturbs me is not the mechanics of the bail/bond system, but the principle of the request.

Now, the ‘Rights and Liberties Protection Department’, which is assumed an independent government department entrusted with the Rights, Liberties and Protection of ALL Thais is planning to exhaust not only it’s present allocation and budget balance in the “Justice” fund but also request additional funds to favour a particular group (jailed red shirt protestors) … have I got this understanding correct?

Irrelevant of your political persuasion you would have to concede that this action would be to the determinant of all Thais who are currently incarcerated and awaiting trial and their hope for an early release, pre-trial through the Justice Fund, has now been extinguished for the foreseeable future (the fund will have no budget monies after this request).

In the spirit of reconciliation would that action (the specific targeting of a political group for special treatment) be support by all Thais?

Is it right?

Is it fair?

Is it a double standard?

No

No

No

Yes

.

[daboyz1]

@Tlansford:

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?

Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation. Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state. Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas. One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose? A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction? I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different. A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount. Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage. If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%. This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear. If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE. That's how they make a living. If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k. That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

[David48]

Clear now?

Thanks daboyz1 for clearing that up and I am sure that is how the system works in the US.

... but this is Thailand and I believe this is a serious matter, so, in the spirit of the article posted could we talk about the situation here and the principles involved?

[whybother]

Thanks daboyz1 for clearing that up and I am sure that is how the system works in the US.

... but this is Thailand and I believe this is a serious matter, so, in the spirit of the article posted could we talk about the situation here and the principles involved?

There are no principles involved.

[lannarebirth]

Clear now?

Thanks daboyz1 for clearing that up and I am sure that is how the system works in the US.

... but this is Thailand and I believe this is a serious matter, so, in the spirit of the article posted could we talk about the situation here and the principles involved?

I think I can help here. The principle involved is "might makes right".

[tlansford]

@Tlansford:

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?

Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation. Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state. Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas. One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose? A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction? I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different. A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount. Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage. If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%. This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear. If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE. That's how they make a living. If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k. That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

I believe I said, " Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail." which is what you are also saying, with the exception that you omit the fact that some states also provide a "payment" plan where the defendant is released on bail - for which he has not paid a cent - but for which he agrees to repay a percentage, usually 10%. The mechanism is still implemented via a bail bond company.

Regarding bondsmen, they are not always on the hook for the full amount, apparently. There was a series on NPR 1 year ago that pointed out that "bondsmen benefit from laws or practices that do not require them to pay the government a substantial fraction of the actual bail forfeited when defendants fail to show, creating a lack of incentive for bondsmen to compel their customers to appear in court."

[tlansford]

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail.

Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors. * A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. * .

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ??? As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing. The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government. In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else... despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue. .

This is like debating with a bag of rocks that has a keyboard interface.

It is possible in the USA to get out on bail without physically paying a cent. It is possible because the State allows for a deferred payment via bond company, etc.

In Thailand, there is a government fund. Whether the implementation is done by shifting money from one account to another or shifting the payment date from one date to another is irrelevant to the accused who is released on bail but not able to pay.

The fact that other posters are not combing the bail posting laws of the other 195 countries in the world in order to satisfy your demand for proof that no other country does the same thing as Thailand is a tribute to the intelligence of the other posters.

[whybother]

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

[Buchholz]

Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors. * A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. * .

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ??? As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing. The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government. In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else... despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue. .

< flame snipped >

It is possible in the USA to get out on bail without physically paying a cent. It is possible because the State allows for a deferred payment via bond company, etc.

In Thailand, there is a government fund. Whether the implementation is done by shifting money from one account to another or shifting the payment date from one date to another is irrelevant to the accused who is released on bail but not able to pay.

The fact that other posters are not combing the bail posting laws of the other 195 countries in the world in order to satisfy your demand for proof that no other country does the same thing as Thailand is a tribute to the intelligence of the other posters.

more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP.

geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP.

Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted.

That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.