Australian DJ jailed for life in Thailand

[PepeLePew]

20 hours ago, joeyg said:

Deal hard drugs.  Should be executed.  Now before you jump on me.  Think of how you'd feel if one of your children got addicted or died from his drugs.  That's what I thought...

 

 

I'd still feel like jumping on you for writing something so monumentally silly!

[F4UCorsair]

10 hours ago, MyFrenU said:

Plus most civilised countries will release their citizens instantly,after serving any number of years in hellhole prisons in developing,third world countries.Except the UK that is where they will make you serve out 50% of the sentence for some unknown reason?

 

 

Not true.   Part of the International Prisoner Transfer programme is that the prisoner must serve the original sentence.

 

Check this link

 

https://www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/Internationalcrimecooperationarrangements/TransferOfPrisoners/Pages/default.aspx

[F4UCorsair]

10 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

 

I expect they were referencing your rubbish estimate of 1000/1 alcohol to drug users.  In the UK 2 out of 3 adults drink at least occasionally, whereas 1 in 5 use drugs at least occasionally.  So it is actually more like 3 times than 1000, quite the mess up.  And are there three times as many accidents caused by alcohol than drug?  Who knows, we don't drug test drivers.

 

 

Ahhh!!! At last we have an authority, just what we need.

 

I said my estimate was a "wild guess, no more", but you are quoting statistics, so it follows that you should be able to produce those studies from which the statistics have come?    

 

Let's see the links.  Thanks.

[F4UCorsair]

3 hours ago, MyFrenU said:

It happens all the time,the 60s were about drug-taking with acid,uppers,downers,peyote,mescaline and all the rest then the late 80s and early 90s.
The hypocrites that are telling you "If you remember the 60s you weren't there" are all the whingeing old giffers telling people not to do it now,unbelievable!

 

 

Maybe now that their memories are shot, brain damage has occurred, all sorts of neurological issues, they've learned something?  They're passing on their knowledge and experience.  We're not here long enough to make every mistake there is to make for ourselves, and it's better you learn from someone else's.

[F4UCorsair]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

The OP report talks "possession". Did he really get 2 x life for possession without any evidence of dealing? Did they just assume he must be dealing due to the number of pills he had on him?

 

 

Not sure about Thailand, but in Indonesia, there is a threshold for possession, above which one is considered to be dealing.  I think that's the case in Australia also?

[PepeLePew]

20 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

Not true.   Part of the International Prisoner Transfer programme is that the prisoner must serve the original sentence.

 

Check this link

 

https://www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/Internationalcrimecooperationarrangements/TransferOfPrisoners/Pages/default.aspx

 

No it isn't. If you read the legislation that your link refers to you will find that the Int prisoner Transfer prog does not state that. In fact it allows the sentence to be converted to be 'consistent with Australian law'

 

This is just 1 of many relevant bits worth reading  :-

 

Part 6—Enforcement of sentences

  

42  Sentence enforcement in Australia

                   The Attorney‑General may direct that a sentence of imprisonment imposed on a prisoner by a court or tribunal of a transfer country, or on a Tribunal prisoner by a Tribunal, be enforced on transfer of the prisoner to Australia under this Act:

                     (a)  without any adaptation of the duration of the sentence of imprisonment or its legal nature, or with only such adaptations to the duration of the sentence or its legal nature as the Attorney‑General considers are necessary to ensure that enforcement of the sentence is consistent with Australian law (in this Act called the continued enforcement method); or

                     (b)  by substituting a different sentence of imprisonment for that imposed by the transfer country or Tribunal (in this Act called the converted enforcement method).

[F4UCorsair]

7 hours ago, tropo said:

What if someone planted some pills on you... or threw some over your balcony and then called the police... or slipped some into an open window? 61 little pills is a small bag. Sentences like these are truly frightening.

 

The prosecutors didn't need any proof of dealing? This sentence was just for possession?

 

Yeah, that happens all the time.   I'd guess the DJ even used that line.

 

An investigation doesn't focus on a single event, background checks are done, past crimes investigated, etc.   Generally, someone is not apprehended for drug use/possession the very first time he touched the stuff.

 

As posted elsewhere, there is an automatic assumption, in some countries, of trafficking when the amount is above a threshold deemed to be for personal use.

[NicciBobThai]

Those sentences are ridiculous, 2x live for 61 pills, damn, what kind of justice system is that????? If you are a 1st time offender, with this amount of pills and a half good lawyer in most of European countries, you wouldn't even go to jail. And that's how it should be. Asian countries are far behind and barbaric when it comes to drug cases, just ridiculous and stupid. Indonesia executes a couple of guys for a bit of heroin, young guys, not hardened criminals, who made a mistake, that's just unbelievable, what a shit of a country. And Thailand gives a young guy, obviously not a real criminal either 2 life sentences for 61 pills, what kind of a <deleted> up place is this. It's just a <deleted> joke how these countries handle cases like this. Hipocrisy at it's best.

[F4UCorsair]

3 minutes ago, PepeLePew said:

 

No it isn't. If you read the legislation that your link refers to you will find that the Int prisoner Transfer prog does not state that. In fact it allows the sentence to be converted to be 'consistent with Australian law'

 

This is just 1 of many relevant bits worth reading  :-

 

Part 6—Enforcement of sentences

  

42  Sentence enforcement in Australia

                   The Attorney‑General may direct that a sentence of imprisonment imposed on a prisoner by a court or tribunal of a transfer country, or on a Tribunal prisoner by a Tribunal, be enforced on transfer of the prisoner to Australia under this Act:

                     (a)  without any adaptation of the duration of the sentence of imprisonment or its legal nature, or with only such adaptations to the duration of the sentence or its legal nature as the Attorney‑General considers are necessary to ensure that enforcement of the sentence is consistent with Australian law (in this Act called the continued enforcement method); or

                     (b)  by substituting a different sentence of imprisonment for that imposed by the transfer country or Tribunal (in this Act called the converted enforcement method).

 

 

You must read AND comprehend.  Nowhere does it say "reduce".  

[PepeLePew]

4 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

You must read AND comprehend.  Nowhere does it say "reduce".  

 

Well you can lead a horse to water but...... You haven't read any of it have you?

 

Australian courts in the habit of handing out double life tariffs for 61 pills are they?

 

Would you like to point out where it says 'the prisoner must serve the original sentence'?

Edited September 7, 2016 by PepeLePew

[F4UCorsair]

Just now, PepeLePew said:

 

Well you can lead a horse to water but...... You haven't read any of it have you?

 

Australian courts in the habit of handing out double life tariffs for 61 pills are they?

 

Of course I read it, there isn't much to read in your quote.

 

No, Australian courts don't often hand out double life sentences, but it is a reference to making what is seen as an inadequate sentence in a foreign country consistent with Australian sentencing, so if a person is sentenced to two years for murder, is repatriated to Australia, the sentence would be upgraded.

 

A double life sentence, ridiculous in itself, would translate to life in Australia.

 

I'll email the Attorney General today for clarification.

 

 

[NicciBobThai]

2 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Of course I read it, there isn't much to read in your quote.

 

No, Australian courts don't often hand out double life sentences, but it is a reference to making what is seen as an inadequate sentence in a foreign country consistent with Australian sentencing, so if a person is sentenced to two years for murder, is repatriated to Australia, the sentence would be upgraded.

 

A double life sentence, ridiculous in itself, would translate to life in Australia.

 

I'll email the Attorney General today for clarification.

 

 

I bet the Attorney General is already waiting for your e-mail and has nothing better to do than chatting with you!!!!!!!

 

[Nasrullah]

^^^^^^what about the reverse ?...........downsizing the sentence?...

[F4UCorsair]

3 minutes ago, NicciBobThai said:

I bet the Attorney General is already waiting for your e-mail and has nothing better to do than chatting with you!!!!!!!

 

 

Sarcasm.....the lowest form of wit.

 

For your interest, I emailed the PM several months ago, and did receive a personal email response, within a couple of days.  Politicians in Australia are accessible, and whilst I will be emailing the AG, it will be one of his underlings who responds.

 

Thanks for your input, banal though it may have been.

[NicciBobThai]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Sarcasm.....the lowest form of wit.

 

For your interest, I emailed the PM several months ago, and did receive a personal email response, within a couple of days.  Politicians in Australia are accessible, and whilst I will be emailing the AG, it will be one of his underlings who responds.

 

Thanks for your input, banal though it may have been.

Awesome Corsair, that's fantastic!!!! If it's like that I will immediately e-mail the AG myself and clarify a few things. I bet he can't wait to hear from me.

[F4UCorsair]

You're welcome, happy to help.

 

You will receive a reply to your email, although I can't imagine that he will be waiting to hear from YOU!!.

[PepeLePew]

15 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Of course I read it, there isn't much to read in your quote.

 

No, Australian courts don't often hand out double life sentences, but it is a reference to making what is seen as an inadequate sentence in a foreign country consistent with Australian sentencing, so if a person is sentenced to two years for murder, is repatriated to Australia, the sentence would be upgraded.

 

A double life sentence, ridiculous in itself, would translate to life in Australia.

 

I'll email the Attorney General today for clarification.

 

 

 

You really haven't read it at all have you! It in fact states the opposite to your claim (again). It stipulates in 43(1) that any substituted sentence cannot be longer than the original.

 

In essence when transferring it gives the AG 3 options

 

1 Enforce the original sentence

2 Substitute the original sentence for a sentence consistent with Australian law for that offence

3 Substitute a different sentence

 

It does not state, anywhere, as you previously claimed, that 'the prisoner must serve the original sentence'. It states directly that any sentence substituted by the AG must not be 'Harsher, in legal nature or duration' than the original!

[NicciBobThai]

6 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

You're welcome, happy to help.

 

You will receive a reply to your email, although I can't imagine that he will be waiting to hear from YOU!!.

I can't tell you how happy I am that you told me about this. I always wanted to e-mail the  Australian AG. Hey, what you think, maybe I can even e-mail the British and French AG to clear up a few things?! 

[F4UCorsair]

4 minutes ago, PepeLePew said:

 

You really haven't read it at all have you! It in fact states the opposite to your claim (again). It stipulates in 43(1) that any substituted sentence cannot be longer than the original.

 

In essence when transferring it gives the AG 3 options

 

1 Enforce the original sentence

2 Substitute the original sentence for a sentence consistent with Australian law for that offence

3 Substitute a different sentence

 

It does not state, anywhere, as you previously claimed, that 'the prisoner must serve the original sentence'. It states directly that any sentence substituted by the AG must not be 'Harsher, in legal nature or duration' than the original!

 

 

We can be bush lawyers all day.

 

I'll PM you with a response when I receive one.

[PepeLePew]

Just now, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

We can be bush lawyers all day.

 

I'll PM you with a response when I receive one.

 

I'm not being a lawyer. I'm just reading the legislation that you provided and claimed stated that the original sentence must be served. I don't think it says that and so far you haven't pointed out why I'm wrong.

[autanic]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

You're responding to someone else's post, but I'll respond to yours.  If given some time in a lab and a modest budget, I could prove scientifically that MSG is more harmful than ecstasy.  I could also prove that sugar, nicotine, trans-fats and possibly caffeine are more harmful.  Any objective person would have to agree than alcohol is far more harmful, ....to the individual and to society.  Anyone familiar with pharma drug impacts would have to agree just as assuredly that pharma drugs are many times more harmful than ecstasy.  If in doubt, check out the stats on people dying from pharma drugs in NE USA.  It's epidemic!  When has an ecstasy user beat his wife or crashed a car (?) - things that alcohol users do dozens of times daily.

 

I saw a video of two young men who popped ecstasy pills and then went to a party and laughed and danced.  Why do Thai officials want to criminalize laughing and dancing?

 

Thai officials in particular, and SE Asian officials in general are clueless in regard to the actual comparative effects of the drugs they criminalize.  All they have are worst-case scenarios reported by people who themselves haven't used the drugs they're criminalizing.  People residing in the pre-USA 13 colonies thought that tomatoes were poisonous, and burned certain women in public - thinking those women looked odd and/or were putting spells on people.  SE Asian authorities are on par with that.

 

I have given you a like, because your arguments seem sound enough.

 

I read with interest that you say X given your method of purification is less harmful than sugar, or caffeine. I just wouldn't know.

[puukao]

If this guy was ON the drug, then I feel bad because he needs some medical care.  But he knew the laws, tried to make money while ruining others, and that deserves a harsh penalty.  Oh, you want to ruin as many lives as possible for money?  This isn't like selling a car that doesn't run.....drugs will destroy families, generations...

 

no sympathy.......some idiots think because pot is legal in one place they can smoke it anywhere and the other country will "see to their logic."  of course, they are thinking like this while on the drug..

 

my advice...if you HAVE to sell drugs to survive.....pick a country with very lenient drug penalties....

 

 

[gemguy]

21 hours ago, joeyg said:

Deal hard drugs.  Should be executed.  Now before you jump on me.  Think of how you'd feel if one of your children got addicted or died from his drugs.  That's what I thought...

 

You stated: Think of how you'd feel if one of your children got addicted or died from his drugs.  That's what I thought...

 

You have a point there that is valid....however, think of it this way relative to the bigger scope of what goes on in society: Think of how you'd feel if one of your children got addicted or died from "Their Alcohol"

The main difference in that respect being that Alcohol is legal and the drug know as Yaa Baa is deemed illegal.

 

I am against the drug also as it is a very damaging and problematic drug and well known to cause numerous social ramifications that we can do without and agreed upon by all....yet, societies in near every country  deal with and cope with and or tolerate alcoholism and alcohol consumption and all the negative ramifications of mass alcohol consumed at leisure....but legally.

Meantime the people and corporate entities that do manufacture the addictive and deadly substance known as alcohol in all the many varieties and forms are not demonized or criminalized while the consumers who do become addicted, along with all the associated social problems that come with alcohol consumption, are also not demonized and or criminalized nor are they seriously stigmatized for their alcoholism ....all because the very problematic substance is legal to consume. 

 

Where it is illegal to consume alcohol,  in some countries, the people that do sell it and or consume it are demonized and criminalized as the end result of harsh laws relative to illegal alcohol consumption.

 

I would never advocate people consume any of the substances that are say classified as intoxicants or recreational uses substances for the purpose of getting high or stoned  or intoxicated or how ever you want to classify or describe the effects of those substances.

 

The recreational drug use is not going to go away while the way they are going about trying to stop the use of the :intoxicants" is not working in a manner that is really worth perusing any further rather they will eventually have to deal with the issue in more creative and logical ways.

 

Or they could be like the Philippines and start to murder all the drug dealers and drug users like they are doing in the Philippines while the body count is stated, for the record at 2400 people and rising after only 3 months of president Duterte's crack down on drug traffickers and drug users.

 

Just pointing out the realities of what is going on while we are not doing a very commendable job concerning how we could address this vast social malady caused by the drugs remaining illegal to consume while people are criminalized for doing so.

 

It is not working as planned so time to start thinking of another plan and the ways and means to deal with a contentious social issue that is not going to go away by way of how it is being addressed at present.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[puukao]

this is why American Government employees CAN become alcoholics, it's legal and they can get treatment without being fired.

 

this is the key......if the country you are in says it's illegal, then you know it is illegal.  if you want to make it legal, well.....good luck.

 

you can't explain to the judge all the "facts" about the drug......nobody cares.  legal or not, simple.

 

if America went back to prohibition, they would find another legal substance to abuse.  i think those people are pretty weak...

 

to figure out the intention of the law is usually money....but that would take forever to go over every "dumb" law in every country...

 

oh, i can't open carry a gun in Thailand?  But I'm from Texas!!!!    lol...JAIL!!!!

[riverhigh]

22 hours ago, rwdrwdrwd said:

I grew up in the UK in the 80s and was a teenager in the 90s - MDMA is neither addictive, nor 'hard', it simply needs to be treated responsibly.

As a parent, I'm perfectly happy for my kid to take he when he gets older, as I did and much of my generation did when I was younger. Not in this country though, it's unfortunately backward in terms of drug legislation.

 

I'd far prefer my son to be taking ecstasy as a teenager than for him to be binge drinking like most kids do.

That sounds like the lesser of two evils argument... (smile). How about a third option of "neither". JMHO.

[soalbundy]

15 hours ago, robblok said:

First mistake XTC is not Yabaa, so if you don't know what your talking about better read up first. But you made your choices and I made mine.

I did say IF, as you can imagine i am no expert on drugs. I wouldn't say NOT taking drugs is a choice, i never felt the need to so there was no question of choice, i can feel happy without flooding my brain with chemicals. 

[Fookhaht]

No don't think in that way.

 

Like many on here- I lived through the late 80's early 90's in a haze of clubbing- it was an amazing time- the drugs were pure ( mostly) a couple of E' s and some speed could keep you going all night ( anyone remember white diamonds? ) 

You lived for the weekend and held down a professional job perfectly well. 

 

The Gay clubs were the best for music- which is what is was all about, I will never forget those experiences - some a bit weird when the whole club turned into a cruise liner! It was quite normal for people to turn into rather strange monsters- was not scary. 

 

I would suggest the guys talking about their experiences way back- have moved on- and would not dream of taking drugs in the Kingdom. 

 

To move across the world to live in another country takes a bit of courage and risk- we were risk takers then. That's perhaps why  you have commented on so many members who have some experience- we are not talking about heroin or crack. 

 

There are others here who understand how truly extraordinary it was to live through that era- it was electric 

Very one-sided and idyllic.

I observed the drug culture a bit earlier--late 60s and through the 70s.

I had friends during that era whose minds were blown and never recovered. Some died from ODs. Others lost jobs and families.

Tell it like it is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.  A post containing a link to a site blocked on Thai servers has been removed as well as the replies. 

[jacnl2000]

21 hours ago, sharecropper said:

A criminal justice system has to have credibility. Thailand's doesn't. They can't even extradite a cop killer from Singapore, they didn't jail the killer of 9 people in a minibus. What kind of justice system is this that can hand out ridiculous sentences to foreign small-time drug dealers when the bigger (Thai) dealers and importers are never caught - I wonder why....?

 

What I tried to write down in here might only be one of the many possible answers to your question:

 

harsh human systems always have had a strong tendency to keep on corrupting themselves. In these two particular cases additional room for negotiation, outside a court of law, might have been much less, than normally, in other parts of society. Once having reached a court of law, rules of society quite sudden loose their appeal, complexity and nuance, so do become so simple that rotten apples can simply be taken out of the basket quickly and be send to prison for quite some time. However, in most other cases, which do never ever reach a court of law, mainly fear plays its role: rotten apples are simply being replaced silently and locally protected by their replacements who actually do know how to consume apples from the poison tree.

 

[joeyg]

2 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

Very one-sided and idyllic.

I had friends during that era whose minds were blown and never recovered. Some died from ODs. Others lost jobs and families.

Tell it like it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think all the dopers and burnouts can take a lesson from this guy... LOL!!!