Tollway Crash Teenager Gets Two-Year Suspended Sentence

[Ratakhun]

Money does a lot of talking when you are dealing with a disputable and flawed justice system.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

putting a girl that was 16 years old at the time of the incident, in jail helps no one. It doesn't help the dead & injured, and it is not how one deals with a kid that makes a serious unintentional error.

She was a juvenile under the law, but she certainly wasn't a "kid."

And as for your claim of "unintentional", admittedly, she certainly didn't go out driving intending to kill 9 people.

But there's also something known as reckless disregard where her conduct, while not intending to kill, was reckless and careless enough to be held legally responsible for the deaths. That's not an error.

Driving underage is not an error. Driving without a driver's license is not an error. Driving alone late at night and probably speeding is not an error.

The only error here was the travesty of justice represented by the sentence in the case -- even for a juvenile defendant.

Edited September 2, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[philw]

putting a girl that was 16 years old at the time of the incident, in jail helps no one. It doesn't help the dead & injured, and it is not how one deals with a kid that makes a serious unintentional error.

She was a juvenile under the law, but she certainly wasn't a "kid."

And as for your claim of "unintentional", admittedly, she certainly didn't go out driving intending to kill 9 people.

But there's also something known as reckless disregard where her conduct, while not intending to kill, was reckless and careless enough to be held legally responsible for the deaths. That's not an error.

Driving underage is not an error. Driving without a driver's license is not an error. Driving alone late at night and probably speeding is not an error.

The only error here was the travesty of justice represented by the sentence in the case -- even for a juvenile defendant.

You are , of course, dead right.

I decided to take my children out of Thailand and back to the UK when my (Wealthy, Chinese ) mother in law bought the eldest son of the family a series 3 BMW for his 16th birthday..........

The family in question own a university and a vocational college and the USA educated girls of the family saw no problem in a 16 year old driving a BMW to school ( down Banga Trad highway ) still in short trouser school uniform.

It's all about face and status.

If the girl involved in this horrific accident feels ANY remorse or it affects her life, there is hope for Thailand.

Sadly, I bet you all, a pound to penny, that she does not give even a token sh1t and once the money is paid, ( by her father ), no further thought will be applied.

There is no limit to the insanity here.

Edited September 2, 2012 by philw

[Keesters]

What concerns me about this sentence is not the fact that a 16 year old girl has been handed the sentence of that of a minor - thats fair enough.

No responsibility or blame has been laid at the hands of those who were in her charge and permitted her to drive the car in the first place.

If a parent allows an 8 year old to play with a live gun and the 8 year old kills 9 people in the process who is really to blame ?

IF a 16 year old child is being tried as a minor, someone is then responsible for allowing her to drive the car illegally.

What is really concerning is that there appears to be no learning. No message to other parents that by allowing their child to drive a vehicle underage they themselves are accountable and are breaking the law.

Yes the parents should be charged. With what I'm not sure but they were responsible for letting her drive and therefore responsible for the deaths. The justice metered out so far does not do justice to the crime. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. They have been robbed of closure by an obviously flawed justice system.

[chotthee]

What concerns me about this sentence is not the fact that a 16 year old girl has been handed the sentence of that of a minor - thats fair enough.

No responsibility or blame has been laid at the hands of those who were in her charge and permitted her to drive the car in the first place.

If a parent allows an 8 year old to play with a live gun and the 8 year old kills 9 people in the process who is really to blame ?

IF a 16 year old child is being tried as a minor, someone is then responsible for allowing her to drive the car illegally.

What is really concerning is that there appears to be no learning. No message to other parents that by allowing their child to drive a vehicle underage they themselves are accountable and are breaking the law.

Yes the parents should be charged. With what I'm not sure but they were responsible for letting her drive and therefore responsible for the deaths. The justice metered out so far does not do justice to the crime. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. They have been robbed of closure by an obviously flawed justice system.

Yes, agreed that parents should be fine 500 Baht each.

[BlackJack]

the postman always rings twice

[BwindiBoy]

Again, driving without a license is the only factor to consider. That singular illegal act means all the subsequent actions and consequences are her responsibility and her fault. No mistakes, no accidents, no misjudgment.

She knowingly committed an illegal act that let directly to the deaths of 9 innocent people.

The parents are equally negligent for allowing her use of the vehicle.

Until proper punishments are meted out to those who think the laws don't apply to them Thailand will never mover forward.

Amen. This is the crux of it.

[Keesters]

In addition to my previous mail: there is a roadsign that says "80" - meaning that is the top-speed you are allowed to go- you check your meter.

If your meter says "120" and you are not slowing down...or you don't even bother checking it...it is no mistake, no error, not unintentional, no tragic accident!

It is careless (as in "I don't care"!) or negligent...to say the least!

Not enough that this whole family in question makes sad excuses for the tragic loss of innocent life- you do, too!

So, you have never accidentally sped? Wow.

I myself have been doing 120KM when the zone changed to 80KM and I DID NOT SEE THE SIGN. One brief moment of looking away, small distraction of any kind, and now I am speeding recklessly. Is it because I "don't care" as you seem to think? No, its not.

You don't really need a sign to tell you what is the safe maximum speed of a particular section of road. Proper training, experience and judgement are what is needed. Even though a sign may say 80kmph at certain times 40kmph may be the safe speed due to exceptional road conditions, fog, rain, heavy traffic etc. Just because the sign says 80kmph doesn't mean you have to drive at 80kmph.

In Thailand however I have witnessed many road signs showing max speeds that make no sense. Many I have encountered suddenly drop the speed but the road conditions are the same or even better. Don't notice the sign and carry on at your previously entitled max speed and a policeman jumps out to stop and fine you. Thai friends have told me that such signs as those are placed for money-making and have nothing to do at all with what is safe or not.

The road running parallel to the rail track in Pattaya has a general speed limit of 50kmph. However there is one section, a dangerous 'S' bend where the posted speed limit is INCREASED to 80kmph. I would love to know the Thai reasoning/logic behind that one.

[DocN]

In addition to my previous mail: there is a roadsign that says "80" - meaning that is the top-speed you are allowed to go- you check your meter.

If your meter says "120" and you are not slowing down...or you don't even bother checking it...it is no mistake, no error, not unintentional, no tragic accident!

It is careless (as in "I don't care"!) or negligent...to say the least!

Not enough that this whole family in question makes sad excuses for the tragic loss of innocent life- you do, too!

So, you have never accidentally sped? Wow.

I myself have been doing 120KM when the zone changed to 80KM and I DID NOT SEE THE SIGN. One brief moment of looking away, small distraction of any kind, and now I am speeding recklessly. Is it because I "don't care" as you seem to think? No, its not.

She was know to like speeding, as her mother (!!!) stated!

So we are not talking "accidentally not looking or overseeing a sign"! We talk "I like to go fast and I dont give a sh@t!"

[Nisa]

Nisa...I have been following your posts for some time now...and I must say, they really get me worked up.

Yeah...you love Thailand and you know everything about it (I assume you are Thai?!) and we farang...we know nothing!

Nothing of the culture, the rules, the traditions...- we simply don't under-sa- tand anything that is going on.

We just lash out against Thailand at every possible occasion, because we just hate the country and everything in it!

...maybe some do...I don't know!

I try to criticeze things that seem wrong in my eyes- wrong in a moral kind of way, not in a justice- way.

In this case, we should keep our mouths shut...as we don't even know all the facts!

Fine!

Here are the facts that I know and that lead me to a conclusion, that this sentence is a joke and nothing else.

Was someone bribed? I don't know!

Was someone intimidated? I don't know!

But I wonder how ANYONE can come to this kind of verdict, based on some very easy to determin and simple facts.

Follow me, if you please!

1) The girls was 16, when the accident occured

2) She was driving without a drivers license

3) She was speeding

4) her parents bought her the car for her 16th birthday.

Let's take a break here. Points 1- 3 are undisputed. Point 4 is the first point that really makes me shake my head in disbelieve. Her father is said to be a high- rank police officer.

Shouldn't you assume, that a man who works for law- enforcement is at least following the law?

Should we also assume, that the car was a bargain and the parents meant to keep it locked away for the next 2 following years until their daughter would be old enough to make a divers license?

Or - why on earth- is a man of the law buying a car for a child, who is not allowed to drive in the first place???

5) the mother said, her daughter liked speeding!

Wait, wait, wait...

So obvously the car wasn't locked away until the daughter was old enough to make a drivers license.

The daughter used it, although she was - by law- not allowed to.

Not only that: her parents knew about it!

And to bring this whole thing over the edge: they knew her daughter liked to drive the car faster than allowed!

This is madness, anywhere in the world!

But I guess, there are not many places where it is told so casualy " Oh yes your honor...she liked to drive and to speed...the litle devil! Tstststs...you know your honor...children!"

What the....???

6) If she apologized, I didn't read or hear anything about it. She claimed the driver of the van was cutting in front of her, making her hit the vehicle, thus saying, at least it was not her fault alone!

...ahm...

That doesn't sound much like an apology to me! Maybe to you it does! I think, it is more the typical "not taking any responsibility for my actions"- Thai way of an "excuse"...which is something different than an apology!

But let's assume for a second, she made an apology somewhere and this is just another, non-contextual statement.

What kind of an excuse is that???

The driver of the van could have done handstands and tumbles...it doesn't matter!

If she wouldn't have been there -which she shouldn't have...no license, too young and speeding- nothing would have happened! End of story!

So...for driving a car, you are too young to drive...without a drivers- license...and speeding...all of this known by the parents....you get 2 years suspended and 48 hours of comunity service???

If I am a farang, in this case lashing out against Thailand...I am proud of that!

Let me assume one more thing: 48 hours of comunity service....which will it be more likely: serving them in an AIDS- hospice, being confronted with real troubles of life or taking care that the flowers at some Royal monument are in order and neatly placed?

This sentence is a disgrace to Thailand and its justice- system, no matter how it came to pass.

I feel sorry for the families of the victims. Not because they didn't get revenge- they didn't get justice...and that is a whole different ballgame.

And I feel outraged about this case...but am I surprised? No way!

What does that make me? A compassionate human being with a sense for injustice and the lack of sympthy for such acts?

Or just another know-it -all- farang, lashing out in a blind rage against Thailand?

I guess, I know your answer!

The father is not a Police Officer.

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

Bottom line is she was a juvi and the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Nisa

[catweazle]

And Déjà vu all over again...

Could we just sum up most of the main topics and move on?

1) Rich Thai kids always get away with murder, no matter how many people they kill driving, shooting, stabbing...

2) Some Thai cocktails contain DEET insect repellant, which is poisonous and can be deadly...

3) Flood prevention does not work...

4) Taxi Complaint Hotline will soon be closed, because due to the massive feedback it causes "puat hua" (headache) for the officials in charge...

5) Thai traffic is mega-dangerous and most taxi, truck, bus and mini bus drivers are a$$#oles on speed and chances to die as a bus passenger are 50/50. 60/40 for death on visa runs...

6) Life is a b!tch and then we die...

Edited September 5, 2012 by catweazle

[FarangTalk]

the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Firstly, I very much doubt you are familiar with the law regarding the sentencing of juveniles in Thailand. Stick to pointless comparisons with the US which seem to predicate your every post.

There's no conspiracy theories or nonsense here, just the ugly reality of Thai society raising it's head.

[Nisa]

the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Firstly, I very much doubt you are familiar with the law regarding the sentencing of juveniles in Thailand. Stick to pointless comparisons with the US which seem to predicate your every post.

There's no conspiracy theories or nonsense here, just the ugly reality of Thai society raising it's head.

An internet search of applicable laws is often better than making assumptions.

The purpose of The Juvenile and Family Court (JFC) is not to dole out punishment, set examples or seek justice for victims but to help the juvenile offender be a productive member of society.

In provinces where there are Juvenile and Family Courts or Juvenile and Family Sections (such as Bangkok), the juvenile justice system is applied including: rehabilitation, vocational training and family reunion.

Sentencing of a child offender.

The Juvenile and Family Court or the regular court may exercise the following discretion in its decision:

(i) If the child commits a minor offence and his or her conduct is not damaging, the court may admonish and then release the child unconditionally;

(ii) If there are mitigating circumstances and the child’s conduct is not too damaging, the court may consign the child to the care of his or her parents or legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living on condition that they pledge a bond with security;

(iii) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct is damaging, but the child does not deserve a sentence of criminal punishment, the court may consign the child to the care of parents, legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living, subject to a bond with security and probation;

(iv) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct requires correction, the court may order the child to be detained in an Observation and Protection Center for a certain period of time which must not last longer than the offender’s twenty-fourth birthday. Alternatively, the court may order a maximum or minimum period of training at the Center;

(v) If the circumstances of the offence are as serious as an adult’s and the child’s conduct is very damaging and not conducive to the application of juvenile procedures, the court may sentence the child to prison but the sentence must be reduced proportionally.

Edit: By the way, Thailand, like many other civilized societies, adheres to international standards when it come to their juvenile justice system.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Nisa

[Keesters]

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

If the car was not borrowed and as she was not old enough to own it herself then she must have stolen (taken without permission of the owner) it. So you can add theft to her list of wrong doings.

[Nisa]

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

If the car was not borrowed and as she was not old enough to own it herself then she must have stolen (taken without permission of the owner) it. So you can add theft to her list of wrong doings.

And if she was slaughtering pigs without a permit while driving too then we can add yet another thing to her list of wrong doings.

[rixalex]

The father is not a Police Officer.

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

What does the father do then? Since Arthur made this statement, i have asked him twice, no answer. Seeing as you are now agreeing with his statement of the father not being a police officer, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us?

I am interested because i have a distinct recollection that after the accident, the father went public to assure everyone that he would not use his influence within the police to aid his daughter, and i am now wondering whether i simply imagined all that and am losing my mind.

[OzMick]

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

Yes despite the facebook pictures (rapidly deleted) of her with her car on 16th birthday, some effort was put into obscuring the actual registered owner. As I recall, the car was a "loaner" from a garage, while some mysterious person, who could not be located, had their vehicle serviced/repaired.

It was strongly suspected at the the time that this was a scam to deflect liability from the vehicle owner. Do you think garages routinely offer near new cars as loaners, and then the recipients loan those cars to under-age unlicenced drivers? When her mother said that she likes to speed, do you think she was referring to the girl's tricycle?

[OzMick]

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

If the car was not borrowed and as she was not old enough to own it herself then she must have stolen (taken without permission of the owner) it. So you can add theft to her list of wrong doings.

And if she was slaughtering pigs without a permit while driving too then we can add yet another thing to her list of wrong doings.

No, she was slaughtering people while driving without a permit.

[katana]

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

Yes despite the facebook pictures (rapidly deleted) of her with her car on 16th birthday, some effort was put into obscuring the actual registered owner. As I recall, the car was a "loaner" from a garage, while some mysterious person, who could not be located, had their vehicle serviced/repaired.

It was strongly suspected at the the time that this was a scam to deflect liability from the vehicle owner. Do you think garages routinely offer near new cars as loaners, and then the recipients loan those cars to under-age unlicenced drivers? When her mother said that she likes to speed, do you think she was referring to the girl's tricycle?

I also seem to remember the ownership of the car at the time was clouded in mystery and not directly revealed. However, I do recall an article in Thairath which didn't quite come out and say it, but alluded to the fact that the car was in fact her parents'.

[Thai at Heart]

the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Firstly, I very much doubt you are familiar with the law regarding the sentencing of juveniles in Thailand. Stick to pointless comparisons with the US which seem to predicate your every post.

There's no conspiracy theories or nonsense here, just the ugly reality of Thai society raising it's head.

An internet search of applicable laws is often better than making assumptions.

The purpose of The Juvenile and Family Court (JFC) is not to dole out punishment, set examples or seek justice for victims but to help the juvenile offender be a productive member of society.

In provinces where there are Juvenile and Family Courts or Juvenile and Family Sections (such as Bangkok), the juvenile justice system is applied including: rehabilitation, vocational training and family reunion.

Sentencing of a child offender.

The Juvenile and Family Court or the regular court may exercise the following discretion in its decision:

(i) If the child commits a minor offence and his or her conduct is not damaging, the court may admonish and then release the child unconditionally;

(ii) If there are mitigating circumstances and the child’s conduct is not too damaging, the court may consign the child to the care of his or her parents or legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living on condition that they pledge a bond with security;

(iii) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct is damaging, but the child does not deserve a sentence of criminal punishment, the court may consign the child to the care of parents, legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living, subject to a bond with security and probation;

(iv) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct requires correction, the court may order the child to be detained in an Observation and Protection Center for a certain period of time which must not last longer than the offender’s twenty-fourth birthday. Alternatively, the court may order a maximum or minimum period of training at the Center;

(v) If the circumstances of the offence are as serious as an adult’s and the child’s conduct is very damaging and not conducive to the application of juvenile procedures, the court may sentence the child to prison but the sentence must be reduced proportionally.

Edit: By the way, Thailand, like many other civilized societies, adheres to international standards when it come to their juvenile justice system.

As well meaning as this maybe, it has unintended consequences for example, in Mexico, little kids are used as drug runners around town, since they can only be charged as minors.

[Rimmer]

A post has been removed because the quoted reply has been altered. Please see the following rule that you must adhere to when you quote a reply.

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[Tatsujin]

The father is not a Police Officer.

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

What does the father do then? Since Arthur made this statement, i have asked him twice, no answer. Seeing as you are now agreeing with his statement of the father not being a police officer, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us?

I am interested because i have a distinct recollection that after the accident, the father went public to assure everyone that he would not use his influence within the police to aid his daughter, and i am now wondering whether i simply imagined all that and am losing my mind.

The family (if I remember correctly) use Na Ayudyha after their surname signifying their descencdence from royal blood lines (and are also presumably quite wealthy etc) - hence why the father stated he wouldn't use his 'influence'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_royal_and_noble_titles

[DocN]

Nisa...I have been following your posts for some time now...and I must say, they really get me worked up.

Yeah...you love Thailand and you know everything about it (I assume you are Thai?!) and we farang...we know nothing!

Nothing of the culture, the rules, the traditions...- we simply don't under-sa- tand anything that is going on.

We just lash out against Thailand at every possible occasion, because we just hate the country and everything in it!

...maybe some do...I don't know!

I try to criticeze things that seem wrong in my eyes- wrong in a moral kind of way, not in a justice- way.

In this case, we should keep our mouths shut...as we don't even know all the facts!

Fine!

Here are the facts that I know and that lead me to a conclusion, that this sentence is a joke and nothing else.

Was someone bribed? I don't know!

Was someone intimidated? I don't know!

But I wonder how ANYONE can come to this kind of verdict, based on some very easy to determin and simple facts.

Follow me, if you please!

1) The girls was 16, when the accident occured

2) She was driving without a drivers license

3) She was speeding

4) her parents bought her the car for her 16th birthday.

Let's take a break here. Points 1- 3 are undisputed. Point 4 is the first point that really makes me shake my head in disbelieve. Her father is said to be a high- rank police officer.

Shouldn't you assume, that a man who works for law- enforcement is at least following the law?

Should we also assume, that the car was a bargain and the parents meant to keep it locked away for the next 2 following years until their daughter would be old enough to make a divers license?

Or - why on earth- is a man of the law buying a car for a child, who is not allowed to drive in the first place???

5) the mother said, her daughter liked speeding!

Wait, wait, wait...

So obvously the car wasn't locked away until the daughter was old enough to make a drivers license.

The daughter used it, although she was - by law- not allowed to.

Not only that: her parents knew about it!

And to bring this whole thing over the edge: they knew her daughter liked to drive the car faster than allowed!

This is madness, anywhere in the world!

But I guess, there are not many places where it is told so casualy " Oh yes your honor...she liked to drive and to speed...the litle devil! Tstststs...you know your honor...children!"

What the....???

6) If she apologized, I didn't read or hear anything about it. She claimed the driver of the van was cutting in front of her, making her hit the vehicle, thus saying, at least it was not her fault alone!

...ahm...

That doesn't sound much like an apology to me! Maybe to you it does! I think, it is more the typical "not taking any responsibility for my actions"- Thai way of an "excuse"...which is something different than an apology!

But let's assume for a second, she made an apology somewhere and this is just another, non-contextual statement.

What kind of an excuse is that???

The driver of the van could have done handstands and tumbles...it doesn't matter!

If she wouldn't have been there -which she shouldn't have...no license, too young and speeding- nothing would have happened! End of story!

So...for driving a car, you are too young to drive...without a drivers- license...and speeding...all of this known by the parents....you get 2 years suspended and 48 hours of comunity service???

If I am a farang, in this case lashing out against Thailand...I am proud of that!

Let me assume one more thing: 48 hours of comunity service....which will it be more likely: serving them in an AIDS- hospice, being confronted with real troubles of life or taking care that the flowers at some Royal monument are in order and neatly placed?

This sentence is a disgrace to Thailand and its justice- system, no matter how it came to pass.

I feel sorry for the families of the victims. Not because they didn't get revenge- they didn't get justice...and that is a whole different ballgame.

And I feel outraged about this case...but am I surprised? No way!

What does that make me? A compassionate human being with a sense for injustice and the lack of sympthy for such acts?

Or just another know-it -all- farang, lashing out in a blind rage against Thailand?

I guess, I know your answer!

The father is not a Police Officer.

And she was driving a borrowed car .. to mention just one of the other incorrect facts.

Bottom line is she was a juvi and the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Where did you buy those glasses, you said?

[softgeorge]

And Déjà vu all over again...

Could we just sum up most of the main topics and move on?

1) Rich Thai kids always get away with murder, no matter how many people they kill driving, shooting, stabbing...

2) Some Thai cocktails contain DEET insect repellant, which is poisonous and can be deadly...

3) Flood prevention does not work...

4) Taxi Complaint Hotline will soon be closed, because due to the massive feedback it causes "puat hua" (headache) for the officials in charge...

5) Thai traffic is mega-dangerous and most taxi, truck, bus and mini bus drivers are a$$#oles on speed and chances to die as a bus passenger are 50/50. 60/40 for death on visa runs...

6) Life is a b!tch and then we die...

Are you advocating for the closure of Thai Visa?

[ttelise]

the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Firstly, I very much doubt you are familiar with the law regarding the sentencing of juveniles in Thailand. Stick to pointless comparisons with the US which seem to predicate your every post.

There's no conspiracy theories or nonsense here, just the ugly reality of Thai society raising it's head.

An internet search of applicable laws is often better than making assumptions.

The purpose of The Juvenile and Family Court (JFC) is not to dole out punishment, set examples or seek justice for victims but to help the juvenile offender be a productive member of society.

In provinces where there are Juvenile and Family Courts or Juvenile and Family Sections (such as Bangkok), the juvenile justice system is applied including: rehabilitation, vocational training and family reunion.

Sentencing of a child offender.

The Juvenile and Family Court or the regular court may exercise the following discretion in its decision:

(i) If the child commits a minor offence and his or her conduct is not damaging, the court may admonish and then release the child unconditionally;

(ii) If there are mitigating circumstances and the child’s conduct is not too damaging, the court may consign the child to the care of his or her parents or legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living on condition that they pledge a bond with security;

(iii) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct is damaging, but the child does not deserve a sentence of criminal punishment, the court may consign the child to the care of parents, legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living, subject to a bond with security and probation;

(iv) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct requires correction, the court may order the child to be detained in an Observation and Protection Center for a certain period of time which must not last longer than the offender’s twenty-fourth birthday. Alternatively, the court may order a maximum or minimum period of training at the Center;

(v) If the circumstances of the offence are as serious as an adult’s and the child’s conduct is very damaging and not conducive to the application of juvenile procedures, the court may sentence the child to prison but the sentence must be reduced proportionally.

Edit: By the way, Thailand, like many other civilized societies, adheres to international standards when it come to their juvenile justice system.

She killed how many people . . . Not like she got into a fight at McDonalds or got busted smoking a joint. She would do some time for this in the US.

And no, internet research is not reality. Just one's person's view and you can find any view you want to support any proposition you desire.

I live in the reality of the Court system. All the fluff and and sweet little policies that everyone tries to advance sounds great on papper or on the net, but the reailty in the trenches is usually a completely different matter.

[catweazle]

And Déjà vu all over again...

Could we just sum up most of the main topics and move on?

1) Rich Thai kids always get away with murder, no matter how many people they kill driving, shooting, stabbing...

2) Some Thai cocktails contain DEET insect repellant, which is poisonous and can be deadly...

3) Flood prevention does not work...

4) Taxi Complaint Hotline will soon be closed, because due to the massive feedback it causes "puat hua" (headache) for the officials in charge...

5) Thai traffic is mega-dangerous and most taxi, truck, bus and mini bus drivers are a$$#oles on speed and chances to die as a bus passenger are 50/50. 60/40 for death on visa runs...

6) Life is a b!tch and then we die...

Are you advocating for the closure of Thai Visa?

Ooops! You got me

[PingManDan]

One can only imagine the amount of money passed under the table in the case of this girl.

[binjalin]

Typical. Rich or well connected family, you can get away with murder here. Nothing changes.

Justice in this country is an absolute farce and a disgrace to the nation.

exactly - would a farmers daughter go free? a local girl working at 7/11? don't think so

[binjalin]

the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Firstly, I very much doubt you are familiar with the law regarding the sentencing of juveniles in Thailand. Stick to pointless comparisons with the US which seem to predicate your every post.

There's no conspiracy theories or nonsense here, just the ugly reality of Thai society raising it's head.

An internet search of applicable laws is often better than making assumptions.

The purpose of The Juvenile and Family Court (JFC) is not to dole out punishment, set examples or seek justice for victims but to help the juvenile offender be a productive member of society.

In provinces where there are Juvenile and Family Courts or Juvenile and Family Sections (such as Bangkok), the juvenile justice system is applied including: rehabilitation, vocational training and family reunion.

Sentencing of a child offender.

The Juvenile and Family Court or the regular court may exercise the following discretion in its decision:

(i) If the child commits a minor offence and his or her conduct is not damaging, the court may admonish and then release the child unconditionally;

(ii) If there are mitigating circumstances and the child’s conduct is not too damaging, the court may consign the child to the care of his or her parents or legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living on condition that they pledge a bond with security;

(iii) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct is damaging, but the child does not deserve a sentence of criminal punishment, the court may consign the child to the care of parents, legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living, subject to a bond with security and probation;

(iv) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct requires correction, the court may order the child to be detained in an Observation and Protection Center for a certain period of time which must not last longer than the offender’s twenty-fourth birthday. Alternatively, the court may order a maximum or minimum period of training at the Center;

(v) If the circumstances of the offence are as serious as an adult’s and the child’s conduct is very damaging and not conducive to the application of juvenile procedures, the court may sentence the child to prison but the sentence must be reduced proportionally.

Edit: By the way, Thailand, like many other civilized societies, adheres to international standards when it come to their juvenile justice system.

haha so funny - and money has no role to play lor

[Nisa]

the law is very clear regarding sentences of juveniles and it is not about setting examples and it is not about punishment but it is about rehabilitation. If a jail sentence isn't going to do her good then it shouldn't be imposed. If the court felt like she made a terrible mistake that she regrets and will not do again then the sentence was appropriate as it leaves room for her to still be locked up if she screws up over the coming years. In the west chances are you rarely if ever hear about a minor being sentenced as a minor because it is kept secret .. not to mention the fact any punishment would have to end by the time the person reached 21 (at least in the US). So, if she is 18 now, that would be 3-years.

But lets not let reality stand in the way of conspiracy theories and other non-sense including her family having money or status because a number of the victims were certainly not from poor families and were well connected and respected.

Even as an adult in Thailand, there is great leniency given to those who make "mistakes" the first time and show remorse. Penalties can be severe but suspended sentences are extremely common for first offenses, especially when it is a crime without malice.

Firstly, I very much doubt you are familiar with the law regarding the sentencing of juveniles in Thailand. Stick to pointless comparisons with the US which seem to predicate your every post.

There's no conspiracy theories or nonsense here, just the ugly reality of Thai society raising it's head.

An internet search of applicable laws is often better than making assumptions.

The purpose of The Juvenile and Family Court (JFC) is not to dole out punishment, set examples or seek justice for victims but to help the juvenile offender be a productive member of society.

In provinces where there are Juvenile and Family Courts or Juvenile and Family Sections (such as Bangkok), the juvenile justice system is applied including: rehabilitation, vocational training and family reunion.

Sentencing of a child offender.

The Juvenile and Family Court or the regular court may exercise the following discretion in its decision:

(i) If the child commits a minor offence and his or her conduct is not damaging, the court may admonish and then release the child unconditionally;

(ii) If there are mitigating circumstances and the child’s conduct is not too damaging, the court may consign the child to the care of his or her parents or legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living on condition that they pledge a bond with security;

(iii) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct is damaging, but the child does not deserve a sentence of criminal punishment, the court may consign the child to the care of parents, legal guardian or the person with whom the child has been living, subject to a bond with security and probation;

(iv) If the circumstances of the offence are violent and the child’s conduct requires correction, the court may order the child to be detained in an Observation and Protection Center for a certain period of time which must not last longer than the offender’s twenty-fourth birthday. Alternatively, the court may order a maximum or minimum period of training at the Center;

(v) If the circumstances of the offence are as serious as an adult’s and the child’s conduct is very damaging and not conducive to the application of juvenile procedures, the court may sentence the child to prison but the sentence must be reduced proportionally.

Edit: By the way, Thailand, like many other civilized societies, adheres to international standards when it come to their juvenile justice system.

haha so funny - and money has no role to play lor

Not sure I mentioned anything about money in the above post .... that is because I think every adult with basic knowledge of things knows that people with money have a huge advantage, pretty much across the globe, when it comes to the court/law system.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Nisa