Lynch Mob Attitude

[English Noodles]

It is a shame there was no lynch mob for the 30 strong gang of teenagers who gang raped the two young girls at nife point last week on Rama 2 in Bangkok.

[aaaaaa]

I tend to believe it is a combination of (b ) and d(iii) - but I must admit I am rather afraid that it might be (c ). Any ideas anyone ?

I think there is d(iv) : many if not most on TV are just very bored and therefore either "smart-assing" or trolling, or flaming, or whatever else not serious or sincere talking (often being drunk). in one time or another, according to mood, state etc. almost everyone lets him-/herself to exercise sort of "devilish" or "<deleted>-kish" sylte or side of nature.

like I recall some thread where guy was telling that some nasty fellow has killed his cat (or was that dog?) because it liked to sleep on that man's car. and all sorts of comments and suggestion were being made - the most imaginable methods to kill the cat as well as how to "teach a lesson" to guy who killed it. I bet 99% of those were not speaking seriously and in real life most surely they won't harm poorrrr cat. (I have to confess - I've made something like that myself there )

so, after a while one has to figure this out and learn how to see what is serious or not here on TV. otherwise one won't last long here. if all the satetements were expressed AS THEY ARE realy, in other words those who make them mean them, I think one who tryies to discuss or argue them might go mad.

I am sure many are just being what is called "cheerleaders" - hooting the crowd in expectation of more "fun" and entertainment in the form of all imaginable ideas and debates and twists of opinions.

yes, many come here for information or association or even "intellectual stimulation", but there are also many those who are VERY bored and try to get some "fun" in such a way - teasing, flaming, b***shiting others.

but then ... perhaps such attitude is intrinsic to mob and its rule ? sort of - mindlessness - I think is more or less precise word.

[aaaaaa]

Neither you nor I know what that silent majority thinks. I suspect that your OP in this thread was intended to maybe draw out some of that silent majority - to see which "camp" they were in.

yes, nice post Indo-Siam, and many interesting and good points.

I'd like to make short comment on this one, nicely phrased "silent majority". or may be it is an observation, to confirm your point.

in fact, even registered members (who by definition and by "rules of engagement" of TV are allowed to post) are SOOOOOO many who hardly writes a lot. one needs only to go to Members area (at this moment it is 2729 pages, with 27,747 registered members - see here, scroll to the very bottom, in Board Statistics section) and do a bit of search (press Toggle More Options, then choose Filter options, like All members by Total posts in Descending order with 50 results per page; good news - total pages would be 546, not 2729) to see - how many people are with zero posts - who keep silent even after joining - perhaps they've joined because not all full options as search are allowed for visitors, only for members. so, they are also "silent majority".

I recall there used to be option to see the most active members - ever, annually, this week, this day. now I can't find it.

to "draw out" some or most of "silent majority" - I doubt it is as much feasible as , say, make all people vote in elections (myself personally never did even once in my life) or other decisions-making or express their real opinion. neither OP nor you would be able to do so, no matter how good or interesting or relevent to their own lives particular post might be.

another point related to "silent majority" : I think what is called mob DOES NOT represent that silent majority. means, "silent majority" is not necessarily supports or "condons" what mob does. in fact "silent majority" might be quite frightened by mob (was that you or other person compring with sheeps, shepherd dos and wolves? I think "silent majority" are mainly sheeps then, while mob is either dogs or even some are volwes themselves).

so, what I'm saying is that trying to analysie mob and use the conclusions on the rest of people - "silent majority" - is preposterous and "hasty generalisaion". because mob usually consists of most active elements of people. and although in big events (as famous revolutions and rebellions) innocent people ("silent majority") can be swept along with waves of events and "mass / crowd mentality" or "herd-effect" palys its role in those times - even then (when more than normally of "silent majority" might be made or forced to be a part of mob) usually wast part of people prefers and tries hard to remain inert, and wait till the outcome of events and adjust their lives, attitudes, opinions etc to the changes - "follow the trend" passively.

[Kerryd]

Well ! Whew, where to begin ! Lots of great posts.

The OP has no doubt read too many of my posts ! Yes, I admit I am one of the savages out there that advocates harsh penalties for the worse of the scum that inhabit our society.

Would I actually hang a child-rapist by his nuts from a lamp post until he falls off ?

Of course not . Most of us grew up with respect for Law and Order (not the TV show). The mores of our society frown upon such actions these days.

Would I like to hang the dirty rat-bastard ? Yes. I feel that society has been handling some of these people with kid-gloves for too long, and the only thing it has done is increase the number of them.

Counselling, therapy and soft sentencing isn't doing anything to reduce the number of perverts out there preying on young children. (Like that scumbag that was caught a few years ago with over 3,000 pictures and 200 videos of himself having sex with kids, some thought to be as young as 18 months !)

Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past).

That is also why I have no problem when Thailand sends a drug dealer to prison for 30+ years. Making some noteworthy (and newsworthy) examples of what happens to people caught with drugs here goes a long way towards deterring others from doing the same.

The ones who still do it, knowing what the penalty could be, deserve their fate.

I have noticed that there seems to be 3 viewpoints on TV regarding matters like this. The hard/extreme punishment side (like myself). The "it's cruel to punish them" side, and the silent crowd that won't express their views for what ever reason.

It does seem that the "hard" crowd put more effort into getting their viewpoint across, and there seems to be more of us willing to post our comments.

Perhaps it is because of the nature of the crimes. A foreigner getting arrested for brawling in a bar doesn't upset us any where near as much as a foreigner arrested for child-rape.

The guy busted for a visa overstay is nothing compared to the guy busted for drug smuggling.

Some out there think those people are being treated unfairly. Others think they got what they deserved.

As for the "mob". Well, I'm not a psychologist, but I do know that people react with a "herd instinct". Perhaps it's a feeling of needing to be a part of the group (going back to our ancestral, tribal ways).

Individuals are smart (for the most part). Groups are sheep, waiting to be herded by the wolves.

You see it all the time. Sports championship celebrations that turn into riots. Peaceful demonstrations that turn into violent protests (like what just happened, again, in France).

Get people into a crowd and they turn dumb. It is easier to follow than to lead.

Let a few instigators loose into the crowd, and now you have a mob. All it takes is for one person to throw a rock and all hel_l breaks loose.

My theory is that those who express this "mob rule" attitude are those who's interest in Thailand is limited to sex, drugs or other illegal acts and this is represented in their views.

I find it incredibly sad that Thailand attracts this type of person....

That is so funny ! You're actually serious, aren't you ?

I've never advocated "mob rule" (I like to handle things......personally). The people to whom you are referring though, would be the people that believe criminals should be punished.

I hardly think that people who advocate stiff punishment for criminals would come to Thailand to engage in illegal acts !

Excuse me while I roll on the floor for a few minutes................

[ray23]

Boy some intersting thoughts here. You know there are talkers in life and doers, I think we are talkers here.

Indio Saim, interesting thoughts about the future you may be right or maybe something will cause the course of history to change before that happens. I can recall as a small child in America taking part if the duck and cover drills in our schools. You see the Soviet Union was going to nuke the entire country. Didn't happen, something changed.

I'm willing to bet there was some small kid in the USSR practising for when we we would nuke his country.

These were very real threats in those times.

[opothai]

Would I like to hang the dirty rat-bastard ? Yes. I feel that society has been handling some of these people with kid-gloves for too long, and the only thing it has done is increase the number of them.

Counselling, therapy and soft sentencing isn't doing anything to reduce the number of perverts out there preying on young children. (Like that scumbag that was caught a few years ago with over 3,000 pictures and 200 videos of himself having sex with kids, some thought to be as young as 18 months !)

Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past).

well kerryd

this is what is needed in most countries, before it gets to late to hand out any sort of punishment.

the punishment for rape in the uk is a joke and it is under review as being too HARSH.

and as far as i can tell 99% of people want increases in sentencing and punishment and only the minority want more understanding and less punishment,

is this called 'minority rule' mob rule

bring back 'majority rule' mob rule

[robitusson]

Would I like to hang the dirty rat-bastard ? Yes. I feel that society has been handling some of these people with kid-gloves for too long, and the only thing it has done is increase the number of them.

Counselling, therapy and soft sentencing isn't doing anything to reduce the number of perverts out there preying on young children. (Like that scumbag that was caught a few years ago with over 3,000 pictures and 200 videos of himself having sex with kids, some thought to be as young as 18 months !)

Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past).

well kerryd

this is what is needed in most countries, before it gets to late to hand out any sort of punishment.

the punishment for rape in the uk is a joke and it is under review as being too HARSH.

and as far as i can tell 99% of people want increases in sentencing and punishment and only the minority want more understanding and less punishment,

is this called 'minority rule' mob rule

bring back 'majority rule' mob rule

What about people who break the law here in Thailand? How should they be treated? For example, how should people who visit sex-workers in Thailand be treated in the eyes of the law? This is illegal here of course.

[zzap]

Chop their nuts off to make an example for the rest of them.

Let's see what the law & order vigilantes have to say now...Opothai?

They've been very quiet on this subject, thanks for bringing it up, Robi.

[opothai]

Would I like to hang the dirty rat-bastard ? Yes. I feel that society has been handling some of these people with kid-gloves for too long, and the only thing it has done is increase the number of them.

Counselling, therapy and soft sentencing isn't doing anything to reduce the number of perverts out there preying on young children. (Like that scumbag that was caught a few years ago with over 3,000 pictures and 200 videos of himself having sex with kids, some thought to be as young as 18 months !)

Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past).

well kerryd

this is what is needed in most countries, before it gets to late to hand out any sort of punishment.

the punishment for rape in the uk is a joke and it is under review as being too HARSH.

and as far as i can tell 99% of people want increases in sentencing and punishment and only the minority want more understanding and less punishment,

is this called 'minority rule' mob rule

bring back 'majority rule' mob rule

What about people who break the law here in Thailand? How should they be treated? For example, how should people who visit sex-workers in Thailand be treated in the eyes of the law? This is illegal here of course.

it may well be illegal to visit sex workers, but this is where common sense and the majorititive opinion comes in to play, the majority of people and authorities turn a blind eye because it IS what the majority want and accept in thailand.

we vote in the rule makers [ government ]

but alas i think in most countries the selected elected are out of touch with the majority of the populace when it comes to passing laws .

and how to deal with murder and violent crimes is a complete shambles and most inconsistent,

once you have set standard consistent punishments, then you have a tool to fight these henous crimes.

in the uk you can get 4 years for rape and murder [ if under 18 ] or possibly 8 years if over 18, but then again you could get 20 years.

in thailand the only consistent law is for drug offences, and as far as i'm concerned that is one hel_l of a deterent of which i'm sure the majority of people would agree.

[chuchok]

it may well be illegal to visit sex workers, but this is where common sense and the majorititive opinion comes in to play, the majority of people and authorities turn a blind eye because it IS what the majority want and accept in thailand.

Interesting. How do you know that the majority of Thais want a blind eye turned?

[Prakanong2005]

The assumption that if one does not shout, rant and rage for castration with rusty scissors for certain offences or wish the anal rape of drug dealers for 30 years of their sentence means that you are saying you do not want them punished is pretty small minded, peurile and without any thought.

I have stated I am totally opposed to capital punishment as I beleive all true civil societies are too - just look at the oppresive regimes stil with this and all the liberal democracy's without.

That is not to say that I would not jail people with life meaning life - capital punishment is not a deterrent.

As for pedophile sex offenders - I am glad I have done my duty as a citizen in the past few years and helped in a small part to get one of these evil persons a life sentence - due process of the law and the maximum sentence possible in the UK

I find this line incredible

"Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past)."

Please point us to whatever example was made and prove the deterrent factor - capital punishment in the USA does not seem to be a deterrent - where does your stated "fact" that some examples have worked - please state what you mean as your sentence is meaningless.

I do find the argument laughable though that if you are not one of us in the witchhunt you must be one of them ie if you do not advocate medieval punishments you must not want to punish them at all.

Far from it dear chap - its just I live in an enlightened society and not in the dark ages.

I do beleive in harshe sentences for certain crimes in many area's - I just do not want to lower myself down to the level of the scum being punished

[Kerryd]

The assumption that if one does not shout, rant and rage for castration with rusty scissors for certain offences or wish the anal rape of drug dealers for 30 years of their sentence means that you are saying you do not want them punished is pretty small minded, peurile and without any thought.

Problem is (here on TV), that all we hear from the people that don't agree with harsh sentencing is: "oh it's so unfair", "it's too cruel", "they only do this to foreigners".

No one (in the threads I've been in) has suggested an alternative of any kind. They usually go into insult-filled rants directed at those who argue the sentencing is justified, without ever explaining their own position on the matter.

"Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past)."

Please point us to whatever example was made and prove the deterrent factor - capital punishment in the USA does not seem to be a deterrent - where does your stated "fact" that some examples have worked - please state what you mean as your sentence is meaningless.

I don't think capital punishment works in the states, because they hardly ever use it. Even in Texas, the number actually executed is minute compared to the number sentenced and sitting on death row. People sentenced to death often sit on death row for 20+ years before their sentence is carried out, unlike many asian countries where the sentence is carried out within days or weeks.

The first examples of deterrance that came to mind when I wrote that was when they used to hang horse theives and cattle rustlers back in the old west.

I also thought of the example General Pershing made of some Muslim terrorists in the Philippines around 1919 (he lined up 50 of them, had his men dip their bullets in pigs blood, then shot 49 of the terrorists, threw them into a grave and dumped the pigs bodies on top of them. He then let the 50th person go free. For over 50 years after that, there were no terrorists incidents (involving Muslims at least) in the Philippines. It made a great deterrance).

I do believe that the harsh prison terms given to drug dealers here is a deterrance. There has been numerous movies, and tons of press about what happens to drug dealers in Asian countries. The number of foreigners arrested isn't a lot, but they tend to get more press coverage.

Compare that to places like Canada, where drug use is on the rise, addicts run wild in the streets, and dealers, even in hard-core drugs, rarely get sent to prison. Those that do get short sentences and are back on the streets dealing soon after release.

I personally know a guy busted with 80 pounds (over 35 kgs) of pot. They didn't even arrest him ! They confiscated the pot and made him promise to appear in court at a later date. A year later, he was busted again (had acres of pot growing openly on his property). Once again, he was asked to "promise to appear" and then let go.

(note that in British Columbia, large amounts of pot are smuggled into the US by gangs who trade it for cocaine, heroin and guns, which they smuggle back into Canada).

One cop told me about a crack-cocaine dealer he had recently arrested. Turns out the guy had been arrested 16 times before, and was never sent to prison once. When the officer finished his arrest report, he was shocked to find out the guy had already been released and was back on his usual street corner dealing !

You won't see that too often in places like Thailand.

I do find the argument laughable though that if you are not one of us in the witchhunt you must be one of them ie if you do not advocate medieval punishments you must not want to punish them at all.

As I mentioned above, that is most likely because those that aren't a part of "the witch hunt" rarely, if ever, are able to engage in reasoned debate. They are either totally silent on the matter, or resort to wild rants filled with insults and personal attacks on other posters.

I do beleive in harshe sentences for certain crimes in many area's - I just do not want to lower myself down to the level of the scum being punished

In a previous post, I mentioned that, while I would "like" to do cruel, evil things to child-rapists, I wouldn't "actually" do them, as I grew up in a society that (for the most part) respects the law.

I do think that making an example of some kind, of some of these people would deter others (actually, it probably wouldn't deter them, they would just do their crap somewhere else, like Cambodia, where there is even less law and order).

(What a coincidence. Just turned on the tv and they are showing the 2nd Bridget Jones movie. It was right at the part where Renee Zwelleger was being put in jail for unknowingly smuggling drugs in Thailand ! Of course, it is no where near as bad as the movie Brokedown Palace).

[Kerryd]

What about people who break the law here in Thailand? How should they be treated? For example, how should people who visit sex-workers in Thailand be treated in the eyes of the law? This is illegal here of course.

Yes, prostitution is illegal here isn't it ? So is pornography.

And if the system here ever decided to enforce the law, a lot of people would go to jail, probably for a lot longer than they would back home for the same offense (although technically, it is the girls that are breaking the law by offering themselves for money. Then you get into the argument that if guys didn't want it, girls wouldn't be selling it, blah blah blah. That is why places like Canada have started going after the men, who technically aren't breaking the law, instead of the prostitutes who are breaking the law.).

(Like the Chinese guy says in the movie The Corrupters, "As long as there are men willing to pay for the pleasurable company of a woman, there will be prostitution in Chinatown).

So, even if they did start enforcing the law, it would lead to fewer girls offering their services, and a huge drop in the number of tourists coming here, meaning a lot of money would be going to other places like Cambodia and the Philippines.

That is probably why they tend to turn a blind eye towards what goes on here. They also know that there is no way all those girls could earn a living if the sex industry shut down. Not just the bar girls, but the ones working in the support industries as well (waitress's, hair dressers, shop clerks, ect).

Where would they all go ? Back to the family rice farm ? Not likely. Even if they did, they would never earn enough to make up for the loss of all those tourist dollars going to other countries.

The point to remember is, This is Thailand. It's their country, their laws. They decide what to enforce and what to ignore. They decide what punishment is appropriate for a crime.

This is a recognized, democratic country. We, the foreigners, don't have the right to tell them what they should and should not enforce, or what a suitable punishment should be.

If you don't agree with the system in place here, you do have options of course.

Vote with your money (i.e. spend your money somewhere else)

Become a Thai citizen and pressure your elected representatives to change the laws/punishments.

Do nothing and complain about it on internet chat groups.

Accept the way things are, stay out of trouble and enjoy your time here.

And Remember, not everyone here (in Thailand) is a sex tourist.

[robitusson]

Would I like to hang the dirty rat-bastard ? Yes. I feel that society has been handling some of these people with kid-gloves for too long, and the only thing it has done is increase the number of them.

Counselling, therapy and soft sentencing isn't doing anything to reduce the number of perverts out there preying on young children. (Like that scumbag that was caught a few years ago with over 3,000 pictures and 200 videos of himself having sex with kids, some thought to be as young as 18 months !)

Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past).

well kerryd

this is what is needed in most countries, before it gets to late to hand out any sort of punishment.

the punishment for rape in the uk is a joke and it is under review as being too HARSH.

and as far as i can tell 99% of people want increases in sentencing and punishment and only the minority want more understanding and less punishment,

is this called 'minority rule' mob rule

bring back 'majority rule' mob rule

What about people who break the law here in Thailand? How should they be treated? For example, how should people who visit sex-workers in Thailand be treated in the eyes of the law? This is illegal here of course.

it may well be illegal to visit sex workers, but this is where common sense and the majorititive opinion comes in to play, the majority of people and authorities turn a blind eye because it IS what the majority want and accept in thailand.

we vote in the rule makers [ government ]

but alas i think in most countries the selected elected are out of touch with the majority of the populace when it comes to passing laws .

and how to deal with murder and violent crimes is a complete shambles and most inconsistent,

once you have set standard consistent punishments, then you have a tool to fight these henous crimes.

in the uk you can get 4 years for rape and murder [ if under 18 ] or possibly 8 years if over 18, but then again you could get 20 years.

in thailand the only consistent law is for drug offences, and as far as i'm concerned that is one hel_l of a deterent of which i'm sure the majority of people would agree.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand if the majority accept the breaking of a law that is illegal then this is acceptable. On the other hand we need a more consistent and thorough way of dealing with law breakers and this should take the form of harsher treatment. Have I understood correctly? If individuals are allowed choose which laws they feel are relevant and which are not how does that fit in with a harsher and stricter approach to lawbreakers? Should the people who killed the Erawan shrine vandal be jailed? Or were they acting in the interest of what the majority of Thais would feel about destruction of religious icons?

[Kerryd]

You have 4 quotes from 3 different people squeezed into you post. Hard to tell who you are referring to.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand if the majority accept the breaking of a law that is illegal then this is acceptable.

Breaking a law that is illegal ? Doesn't make sense to me, but I've got a roaring headache right now.

If the Majority think that a law is wrong, then they should be pushing their elected representatives to amend or abolish that law. That would be the acceptable way of doing things in a democracy that governs based on the will of the majority of it's citizens.

(Which is why marijuana is still illegal in many countries. The Majority of the people don't want it legalised, just a small but vocal Minority).

On the other hand we need a more consistent and thorough way of dealing with law breakers and this should take the form of harsher treatment. Have I understood correctly?

If Thailand decided that overstaying your visa was punishable by up to 5 years in prison, that is their decision. It may be harsh, we certainly wouldn't like it, but tough luck, it's not our country.

If Thailand decides not to arrest prostitutes (who are violating the law), that is their decision as well. As I mentioned in another post, if at some time Thailand did decide to enforce those laws, there would be a lot of people going to jail.

I don't suppose you have any data to support an argument that treating criminals with soft sentences reduces crime ?

That easy jail terms are an effective deterrance ? That the overall crime rates have gone down as the justice system becomes more lenient towards criminals ?

How's this for a stat. The majority of people in prison in Thailnd are there for drug related offenses. Ever since Thailand started taking a much harder line against drugs (remember all those arrests and killings a couple of years ago ?), the prison population has declined. There are roughly 97,000 fewer inmates in prison now than there were before the war on drugs (and no, they didn't up and execute all of them. Just fewer of them being arrested these days, especially for drugs).

Is this a result of the harsher stance the government has taken on drug dealers/smugglers ? I'll be honest when I say I don't know for sure, but the numbers by themselves would indicate so.

If individuals are allowed choose which laws they feel are relevant and which are not how does that fit in with a harsher and stricter approach to lawbreakers? Should the people who killed the Erawan shrine vandal be jailed? Or were they acting in the interest of what the majority of Thais would feel about destruction of religious icons?

Individuals do have the choice as to which laws they will follow and which they don't. However, when an individual decides not to follow a law, we call him a criminal. When he/she is caught and tried, they get punished (if found guilty of course).

Soft punishment doesn't stop many of these people from going out and re-offending.

The people who killed the Erawan shrine vandal were arrested (weren't they ?) and will be tried for murder. They did not act with the authority of the law (i.e. they were not police officers), and they did not act within the law.

The Majority of people in Thailand may have wanted that vandal to be given the death penalty if (when) he was found guilty by a court of law. If the law allows that penalty (for that crime) he may have very well been given a death sentence (probably not though, due to his supposed mental condition).

If the Majority of the Thai people feel that vandalism/destruction of religious icons and places of worship deserves the Death Penalty, then that may already be "on the books" as a possible punishment for that crime.

[robitusson]

You have 4 quotes from 3 different people squeezed into you post. Hard to tell who you are referring to.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand if the majority accept the breaking of a law that is illegal then this is acceptable.

Breaking a law that is illegal ? Doesn't make sense to me, but I've got a roaring headache right now.

If the Majority think that a law is wrong, then they should be pushing their elected representatives to amend or abolish that law. That would be the acceptable way of doing things in a democracy that governs based on the will of the majority of it's citizens.

(Which is why marijuana is still illegal in many countries. The Majority of the people don't want it legalised, just a small but vocal Minority).

On the other hand we need a more consistent and thorough way of dealing with law breakers and this should take the form of harsher treatment. Have I understood correctly?

If Thailand decided that overstaying your visa was punishable by up to 5 years in prison, that is their decision. It may be harsh, we certainly wouldn't like it, but tough luck, it's not our country.

If Thailand decides not to arrest prostitutes (who are violating the law), that is their decision as well. As I mentioned in another post, if at some time Thailand did decide to enforce those laws, there would be a lot of people going to jail.

I don't suppose you have any data to support an argument that treating criminals with soft sentences reduces crime ?

That easy jail terms are an effective deterrance ? That the overall crime rates have gone down as the justice system becomes more lenient towards criminals ?

How's this for a stat. The majority of people in prison in Thailnd are there for drug related offenses. Ever since Thailand started taking a much harder line against drugs (remember all those arrests and killings a couple of years ago ?), the prison population has declined. There are roughly 97,000 fewer inmates in prison now than there were before the war on drugs (and no, they didn't up and execute all of them. Just fewer of them being arrested these days, especially for drugs).

Is this a result of the harsher stance the government has taken on drug dealers/smugglers ? I'll be honest when I say I don't know for sure, but the numbers by themselves would indicate so.

If individuals are allowed choose which laws they feel are relevant and which are not how does that fit in with a harsher and stricter approach to lawbreakers? Should the people who killed the Erawan shrine vandal be jailed? Or were they acting in the interest of what the majority of Thais would feel about destruction of religious icons?

Individuals do have the choice as to which laws they will follow and which they don't. However, when an individual decides not to follow a law, we call him a criminal. When he/she is caught and tried, they get punished (if found guilty of course).

Soft punishment doesn't stop many of these people from going out and re-offending.

The people who killed the Erawan shrine vandal were arrested (weren't they ?) and will be tried for murder. They did not act with the authority of the law (i.e. they were not police officers), and they did not act within the law.

The Majority of people in Thailand may have wanted that vandal to be given the death penalty if (when) he was found guilty by a court of law. If the law allows that penalty (for that crime) he may have very well been given a death sentence (probably not though, due to his supposed mental condition).

If the Majority of the Thai people feel that vandalism/destruction of religious icons and places of worship deserves the Death Penalty, then that may already be "on the books" as a possible punishment for that crime.

I was replying to Opothai. I never mentioned anything about soft punishments in my post. I'm addressing the inconsistency in saying if the majority support harsher punishment for serious crimes while the majority in Thailand obviously pick and choose which laws they choose to obey and which laws they choose to disobey, including we Farangs. If we are to have a strict and harsh legal system here and it has to applied to all the laws, not just the ones we see as relevant, I'm sure a lot of Farangs, including TV members would be in big trouble.

I hope your headache is better.

"You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand if the majority accept the breaking of a law that is illegal then this is acceptable.

Breaking a law that is illegal ? Doesn't make sense to me, but I've got a roaring headache right now."

To clarify...If the majority accept the breaking of a law then is this acceptable, is what I'm asking.

Edited March 26, 2006 by robitusson

[phibunmike]

First "mob rule" - that sounds like a general description of democracy - as opposed to rule by an elite few - or a single person. You seem to want to replace "mob rule" by "rule by you". Or - you want to have a government that was elected by that same "mob" remain in control. "Vigilante justice" is probably the correct term.

I think you have that completely backwards. If I can excercise MY idea of justice on the streets by killing/beating someone, that is "rule by me". Allowing the police to arrest the perpetrator, and have him tried according to the laws established by the government elected by the people, is "democracy".

Your idea puts the rule of "law" in the hands of the strongest, not the smartest.

Until and unless that happens, you are talking about the competition of ideas about how things should be run. Whay would this bother you? Do you want to live in a bland world where nothing ever changes, and there is no adaptation to a changing social envorinment ? Are you afraid of competing ideas?

Vigorous debate should not be stifled - just because it includes discussion of alternate solutions that you personally find abhorrent.

If I wanted to stifle debate of alternative opinions, I would hardly have started this thread

I have not said I am opposed to changes in the law. I am opposed to individuals or groups acting outside the law. In the world which you seem to aspire to, the law would be irrelevant, because vigilantes would be free to act as they saw fit. KerryD made the point well, saying he/she would like to do such-and-such to so-and-so, but refains because it would be to the general detriment of society. (Sorry for paraphrasing you there KerryD),

I do not believe that my personal views should be implemented as social policy. But I feel that I - and people who share similar views - should have a voice in the debate - to keep the outcome closer to a balanced center.

Absolutely agree: as Voltaire said "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

First "mob rule" - that sounds like a general description of democracy

One bone to pick with you, Indo-Siam: I think you are deliberately mis-interpreting my term "mob-rule" in order to help your argument. I admit the term is inaccurate, I later refined it as:

"I use the term "mob-rule" to refer to an immediate judgement and execution of sentence by a group of people (even a small group), as opposed to arrest, trial in a court of law, judgement and sentencing. I am sure there is a better term than "mob-rule" for this - please offer one."

Your list of the way you perceive my priorities is wrong (I actually think most western legal systems are far too soft on perpetrators who get hurt in the execution of their crime). I could also say that you put vigilantes at the top of the list - I am sure that would be unfair, I don't want to presume to tell you what your priorities are, so please don't make assumptions about mine.

Cheers,

Mike

Edited March 26, 2006 by phibunmike

[opothai]

Would I like to hang the dirty rat-bastard ? Yes. I feel that society has been handling some of these people with kid-gloves for too long, and the only thing it has done is increase the number of them.

Counselling, therapy and soft sentencing isn't doing anything to reduce the number of perverts out there preying on young children. (Like that scumbag that was caught a few years ago with over 3,000 pictures and 200 videos of himself having sex with kids, some thought to be as young as 18 months !)

Making an example of a few of them would make an excellent deterence to others (something that did work in the past).

well kerryd

this is what is needed in most countries, before it gets to late to hand out any sort of punishment.

the punishment for rape in the uk is a joke and it is under review as being too HARSH.

and as far as i can tell 99% of people want increases in sentencing and punishment and only the minority want more understanding and less punishment,

is this called 'minority rule' mob rule

bring back 'majority rule' mob rule

What about people who break the law here in Thailand? How should they be treated? For example, how should people who visit sex-workers in Thailand be treated in the eyes of the law? This is illegal here of course.

it may well be illegal to visit sex workers, but this is where common sense and the majorititive opinion comes in to play, the majority of people and authorities turn a blind eye because it IS what the majority want and accept in thailand.

we vote in the rule makers [ government ]

but alas i think in most countries the selected elected are out of touch with the majority of the populace when it comes to passing laws .

and how to deal with murder and violent crimes is a complete shambles and most inconsistent,

once you have set standard consistent punishments, then you have a tool to fight these henous crimes.

in the uk you can get 4 years for rape and murder [ if under 18 ] or possibly 8 years if over 18, but then again you could get 20 years.

in thailand the only consistent law is for drug offences, and as far as i'm concerned that is one hel_l of a deterent of which i'm sure the majority of people would agree.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand if the majority accept the breaking of a law that is illegal then this is acceptable. On the other hand we need a more consistent and thorough way of dealing with law breakers and this should take the form of harsher treatment. Have I understood correctly? If individuals are allowed choose which laws they feel are relevant and which are not how does that fit in with a harsher and stricter approach to lawbreakers? Should the people who killed the Erawan shrine vandal be jailed? Or were they acting in the interest of what the majority of Thais would feel about destruction of religious icons?

i am not trying to contradict myself, only pointing out the inconsistency with the laws.

prostitution and sex parlours are part of the thai make up, they have been here a lot longer than us falangs.

if it was not acceptable by the majority then indeed it would be shut down.

my main point is that punishments for crimes that affect other people's lives espcially violent and degrading crimes, should be punishable with consistent laws.

i am not going to get into specific cases, as i think common sense comes into play or should do,

[saeb]

Oooooeerrrr.......severe opinions have reared their heads again I note:

However, with regard to the poster(s) complaining that sentencing in the U.K. is too soft appear not to be aware of a couple of points:

1. It is called the 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act' - please note, "Rehabilitation".

Jeffery Archer being a prime example - now if he were from a council estate would it be different?.

Maggie Thatcher's son who got 30 mill from the Saudis to help broker the Tornado deal - <deleted> can't even read a map ; What does he know about aircraft?.

The whole prison system was reformed in the U.K. through the late 1800's and early 1900's in that the system that had previously hanged children as young as 8 for stealing a loaf of bread thought that there was another way forward.

Transportation for life to the colonies for trapping a rabbit. It happened far too often.

2. A number of countries came to the conclusion many years ago that keeping someone in prison for more than 7 years was a waste of time and money as after that time a person becomes 'Institusionalised', i.e. where they are is the norm and it serves as no further deterent.

Putting more and more people in a lesser and lesser available space as the prison poulation in the U.K. is expected to do so serves no purpose other than to place people off the street.

Surely on their release, they should then be expected to have a worhtwhile place in society - work, pay tax and avoid future criminal acts?.

How then are they expected to do this whilst locked in 21 hours per day and learning sweet FA?.

Any prison governor will tell you that prisons breed criminals.

Oh - and to the 'cut their nuts off and hang 'em high brigade'

My younger sister was raped when she was 19. By a man who had a history of extreme violence going back through his father and grandparents - he had been cleared of two rapes and numerous violent assaults before that time.

He himself had been subject to systematic sexual assaults by his father and uncles as had all the kids in his family............

Whilst he is a piece of shit in my opinion he is a product of his upbringing.

His father and uncles - nothing happened to them. Him?. He's now in for attempted murder aged 40 and no doubt enjoying raping 18 year old boys in the nick for non payment of fines.

And how many of those kids are going to come out with a chip on their shoulder?.

[Kerryd]

Oooooeerrrr.......severe opinions have reared their heads again I note:

However, with regard to the poster(s) complaining that sentencing in the U.K. is too soft appear not to be aware of a couple of points:

1. It is called the 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act' - please note, "Rehabilitation".

Ahhh, Rehabilitation. Does it work ?

Not sure about the UK, but in other countries it doesn't seem to do much good. One report I saw a few months ago (from the US) noted that 60+% of people released from prison re-offend within months of their release.

Rehabilitation may work for low-grade stuff, people that do B&E's, car theives, vandals, but I don't think it does much good on the hard-core rapists, murderers and drug-dealer types.

2. A number of countries came to the conclusion many years ago that keeping someone in prison for more than 7 years was a waste of time and money as after that time a person becomes 'Institusionalised', i.e. where they are is the norm and it serves as no further deterent.

Any prison governor will tell you that prisons breed criminals.

What's the answer then, let murderers and child rapists out after 7 years ?!?!?! And when they re-offend, not lock them up again as they have already done 7 years, so sending them to prison again would be a waste of time and money ?!?!?!

Prisons breed criminals ? I'm sorry, but I thought one had to be a criminal in the first place to be sent to prison ?

Oh - and to the 'cut their nuts off and hang 'em high brigade'

My younger sister was raped when she was 19. By a man who had a history of extreme violence going back through his father and grandparents - he had been cleared of two rapes and numerous violent assaults before that time.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister. I think anyone who rapes a woman is despicable.

But consider this, if that creep had of received harsher sentencing in those previous crimes, he wouldn't have been on the streets and wouldn't have been able to rape your sister.

The circumstances of his childhood should have been dealt with (counselling and therapy) long before he committed any crimes. Funny how we usually don't hear about those childhood problems until after someone commits a crime and goes to court.

In fact, you hear it so often, after the fact (while in court) I sometimes wonder if a lot of it isn't made up and used by the solicitors/defense attorneys to try and gain sympathy for their clients.

Millions of people have been abused as a child by relatives and/or friends of relatives. Yet only a tiny portion of those people go out and commit crimes. Then they try and blame their actions on events that happened 20-30+ years before.

There was a time, not that long ago, when people were held responsible for their own actions. These days how ever, it seems that there is always someone else to blame. Nobody is responsible for their actions, it's all the fault of someone or something else.

It just makes me shake my head in disbelief.