Re Enactments Of Crime

[leisurely]

Having just read on a news site that the proposed reenactment of the murder of the young woman on Koh Samui was disrupted, I have to ask why do the Police do this? I truly can't understand it, it is bizarre in the extreme. The worst one I have ever seen was on the front of a newpaper and involved a man strangling a teddy bear with a chain (presumably the bear stood in for the victim).

I am sure the question has been answered before but couldn't find anything about it.

Leisurely

[The Muji]

I have heard that the perps often get reduced sentences if they agree to do a public reenactment. Could this be meant as a punishment in the form of public humiliation?

Edited January 10, 2006 by The Muji

[Losangels]

I do not agree to the re-enactment of any crime. What are the chances that the accused/confessed criminal did not commit the crime and was forced into it? They are other ways to punnish the criminal but public humilation is not one of them. Besides it's against the Thai constitution. but again what is written in the constitution is not usually abide to. TIT

[chanchao]

> They are other ways to punnish the criminal but public humilation

> is not one of them.

In this case though, public execution indeed sounds a lot better.

[sierra01]

I always thought it was done to jog the memories of people that might have seen or heard something, but haven't come forward.

[gburns57au]

I always thought it was done to jog the memories of people that might have seen or heard something, but haven't come forward.

That is the exact reason plus if the accused does re-enact then the cops can sometimes pick up evidence previously overlooked.

[spog]

That is the exact reason plus if the accused does re-enact then the cops can sometimes pick up evidence previously overlooked.

And of course, it ensures that all the witnesses finger the same person.

Thus removing potential embarassment if the police actually have the wrong person.

[Neeranam]

QUOTE(gburns57au @ 2006-01-10 19:01:25)

That is the exact reason plus if the accused does re-enact then the cops can sometimes pick up evidence previously overlooked.

And of course, it ensures that all the witnesses finger the same person.

Thus removing potential embarassment if the police actually have the wrong person.

It makes good watching on tv. It's great to see the flying kicks by relatives and local <deleted>.

It gives the friends and relatives a chance for revenge. Good idea, keep it I say.

Spog is that your daughter in your avatar? she is hot, but how old is she?

[spog]

Spog is that your daughter in your avatar? she is hot, but how old is she?

I'm not that bloody old!

[sbk]

> They are other ways to punnish the criminal but public humilation

> is not one of them.

In this case though, public execution indeed sounds a lot better.

And in this case, that is very nearly what happened. Coincidentally, my husband said something about that before they even got these two: that if the locals found out who did it and got to them before the police, they'd be dead men.

Locals, in this case, being actually Samui people: not just some Thai people who happen to live there (sorry but as a person who has lived on the islands for quite some time, that is quite a big difference --esp in the eyes of the locals).

Anyway, I find the whole reenactment thing completely appalling.

[ThaiPauly]

I remember seeing a picture in a Thai newspaper of two guys on a motorbike, one with a gun aiming at a car (the occupant of which was, thanks to them, a few weeks deceased). The only difference was that they were not wearing helmets during the re-enactment. How this could possibly help jog people's memory beggars belief.????

I really would like to know why the police put these people through this. I am not saying they don't deserve public humiliation and I can see that a complete confession by way of a re-enactment probably saves them from the death penalty, but it must be extremely disturbing for the families of the victims.

Why DO the Police do it... to prove that they really DO catch criminals??

I would dearly LOVE to know what their reasoning for this is?

[sbk]

I've seen reenactments with rapists, where the victim is forced to confront her attacker in public--and watch the reenactment!

What kind of police would put a victim through this kind of torture, and all so unnecessary?

[penzman]

Spog is that your daughter in your avatar? she is hot, but how old is she?

We could arrange for you to meet her. Bring an air pump!

[Rumpole]

I always thought it was done to jog the memories of people that might have seen or heard something, but haven't come forward.

That is the exact reason plus if the accused does re-enact then the cops can sometimes pick up evidence previously overlooked.

But in Western countries (the UK, at least), a reenactment is done whilst the police are still searching for the perpetrators. The idea being to jog the memories of potential witnesses, in the hope that evidence may be forthcoming which helps identify the criminal. Reenactment is not done in every case, even those involving serious crime, and I cannot recall ever seeing one in which a suspect who is already in custody plays a leading role. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that such a proceeding would be illegal as it is potentially prejudicial to the outcome of a fair trial.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Rumpole

[sua yai]

I'm sure it was reported on TVisa last year that these reenactments, together with the grusome newspaper photos of crime scenes were being stopped. The Crime Reporters Assoc of Thailand (or some such) was up in arms about it.

Only a judge can order a reenactment if he/she deems it necessary. I didn't think the police could do it off their own backs any more.