The Death Penalty In Thailand [poll]

[bmanly]

The Thai Judiciary currently hands out Death Sentences for certain crimes. I have often spoken to Thais about how a murderer for example should be dealt with in the courts and a lot of the time the reply is "have to kill". For serious crimes that is not an uncommon answer.

Some modern 1st. world Countries like the USA and Singapore apply the death sentence, other countries like UK and Australia would never have such a law in place. What are your views do you think it is right?

[bendix]

Completely against it, not just in Thailand but anywhere.

I dont care about many things; this is the ONE thing i do have very strong feelings about for reasons too numerous to go into.

Thailand has the death penalty, but it hasnt been used for nearly 3 years; I hope it's a sign that the powers that be are losing their appetite for it.

Also, I think it's misleading to say that the USA has it. Certain states have it; others abolished it decades ago and wouldnt countenance bringing it back.

I once saw an interesting article exploring the correlation between the average IQ and per capita income of US states, and their policy on capital punishment. I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to work out the findings.

[Jai Dee]

This is indeed a touchy subject and I would like to remind all members to be mindful of the Forum Rules in dicussing this topic.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation and understanding.

[Thaddeus]

Totally against it..... for anything.

I doubt if anyone has proved it convincingly, but the death penalty is not a deterrent IMO, neither is it a punishment, it's a lucky escape.... a few years stay at the Hilton is far more painful.

Plus, add to that the number of cases that have been overturned when new evidence has surfaced.... you can free a wrongly imprisoned person.... but you can't revive a dead one.

[terry57]

i must say that ive always been under the opinion that in strait out murder cases the death penalty is justified.

my case being child rapists, mass murders and there ilk.

problem being that some countries including the USA in quite a few cases have got it wrong and killed an innocent man.

anyway ive changed my views on the death penalty and think it should be abolished.

why you ask.?

because the scum of the earth should rot in jail for the rest of there lives as the death penalty lets them off too easy.

and thats my only reason.

[rcm]

No, not under any circumstances

To allow the death sentence would be the same as allowing the Justice System committing a crime.

So, a Citizen would think , If the Justice System of his Country is allowed to "kill" than so is he. There is no role modell behaviour being shown. It also answers the question why in the US are such a lot of homicides.....too many take the justice in their own hands.

Edited December 1, 2006 by rcm

[Little Black Duck]

i must say that ive always been under the opinion that in strait out murder cases the death penalty is justified.

my case being child rapists, mass murders and there ilk.

problem being that some countries including the USA in quite a few cases have got it wrong and killed an innocent man.

anyway ive changed my views on the death penalty and think it should be abolished.

why you ask.?

because the scum of the earth should rot in jail for the rest of there lives as the death penalty lets them off too easy.

and thats my only reason.

Have to admit I was for Death Penalty, but reading Terrys response I thought about what he said and I have to agree...Very sound reasoning Terry..

[PhilHarries]

Oh boy! What is the predicted run time for this topic?

To answer, if it could be guaranteed 100% that convicted murderers are the actual guilty party then I'd be inclined to say yes. If it could be arranged that the drug barons/kingpins are executed and not just the poor suckers acting as mules I'd say yes.

But of course both of those are total no brainers so I'd have to say no. However there is a case for maintaining the threat, as with the nuclear threat during the cold war, just to try and act as a deterrant. But the overwhelming evidence is that the threat doesn't work so why bother with the threat? But if you have the threat and use it there is a chance that innocent folks are going to get executed.

This could go on ad infinitum.

Despite strong feelings for yes I have to say no.

[Casanundra]

Gut feeling would be 'yes' but reality has to be a resounding 'no'

Instead of sticking them all in jail however for them to enjoy the delights of tax payers money to take care of them, all criminals should be sent to a special army penal squad and then sent off to be the front runners on all front line conflicts around the world. If they survive 5 years in the penal squad then they can be pardoned and sent back to somewhere remote

Edited December 1, 2006 by Casanundra

[bendix]

Gut feeling would be 'yes' but reality has to be a resounding 'no'

Instead of sticking them all in jail however for them to enjoy the delights of tax payers money to take care of them, all criminals should be sent to a special army penal squad and then sent off to be the front runners on all front line conflicts around the world. If they survive 5 years in the penal squad then they can be pardoned and sent back to somewhere remote

yeah, that's just what you need in a battle, isnt it? Thieves, rapists and murders leading the frontlines - a truly motivated defence force.

Jeez . . .

[leisurely]

An alternative could be land mine clearance. There is a definite need for it and what an incentive to do it properly.......................

[cdnvic]

I have no moral issue with a murderer forfieting their life. Unfortunately I have zero faith in the justice system of any country being right 100% of the time, and for that reason am against the death penalty anywhere.

That doesn't mean however, that phrases like "...at hard labour" and "..for the rest of your natural life" should be excluded from sentencing.

Edited December 1, 2006 by cdnvic

[GuestHouse]

Justice is fallible, execution is irreversible; an irreversible act based on a fallible decision?!

Executing someone on the basis of a flawed legal system has to be wrong.

All legal systems are flawed, the Thai legal system to a degree that boarders on a sick joke.

So no executions in my name, but flogging and hard labor by all means.

[jingjoe]

I've had a long association with 1000's of criminals.

I could only count on one hand those that needed a swift headshot.

They were the ones that continued their murderous behaviour despite the most stringent controls available under the law. They were fkin' dangerous, and could/did/do make a prison murder look like suicide.

That said, I am opposed to the death penalty in Australia.

What I WOULD promote for the tiny percentile of oxygen thieves, is;

Re-name them organ donors.

Any sick child or other worthy recipient who requires an organ, can, if available have an organ of any matching "organ donor".

The organ donor lives on where possible, until an organ needed and taken causes his/her death, at which point all other available organs are harvested and used if possible.

In this way, even the lowest grub of society has an opportunity to "re-pay" his debt to that society.

[Thaddeus]

The organ donor lives on where possible, until an organ needed and taken causes his/her death, at which point all other available organs are harvested and used if possible.

I would hope that the Hippocratic Oath would make that plan fail.

[November Rain]

Couldn't answer the question, I'm afraid. Do I agree with the death penalty? No. Do I agree with the death penalty in Thailand? I can't comment on an entire country's culture & judiciary system. But, overall, in the grand scheme of things, no, I don't agree for many of the reasons already listed.

[The Bartender]

I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings.

--Marquis de Lafayette

Ten years ago, I read an interesting journal breaking this soft science issue with a more hard science approach. The author basically equated "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to mean the juror is about 95-98% sure the person committed the crime. (This obviously doesn't apply with admissions of guilt.) After all, unless all 12 jurors personally saw the crime committed, the jury can't be 100% sure. If you follow the logic, and if you have 1,000 executions in x amount of time, as much as 5% have a chance of being innocent.

Obviously an erroneous guilty verdict is a travesty of justice. However, when dealing with the finality of death, it's simply unacceptable...anywhere.

[britmaveric]

100% for it!!!

[girlx]

hmm. i waver back and forth on this subject. i have (or should say had) a very close personal relationship with someone who is now on death row. he is a child rapist and a mass murderer, among other crimes. he is the most messed up person i have ever known. but knowing him well, i believe that if he ever had gotten the right sort of treatment for mental disorders, he could have been rehabilitated successfully. he never did get the correct treatment, and took it out on society. whose fault is it? i know he is wrong, and he does deserve punishment. but it's hard knowing that he does have a really good side and if he could have gotten help this might have been prevented. i think life imprisonment and a death sentence are equally horrific punishments. in both cases i feel it is wrong for a judge to play god with someone's life without giving them a chance to redeem themselves. i guess though that some people (too many people) can't be helped and won't change, and the only way to keep society safe and these people off the streets is either to lock them up or kill them. it's a sad situation any way you look at it.

[Donz]

I agree with it, there is too many people doing stupid things in this world.

You do the crime that warrants the death penalty, then cya

[JacknDanny]

In principle I am all for the Death Penalty for serious offences, however over here in Thailand I think that Terry makes a good point, that being conditions over here are apparantly bad, so the prisoner would rot away...Good idea in my eyes.

By the way I have just read a book called The Last Executioner........memoirs of Thailands last Prison Executioner. About the guy who pulled the trigger before it became chemical injections etc. Great book, written by an extremely humble and interesting man. I would urge everybody to read it, it gives a great insight into what went on

[Buckwheat]

I agree and so does my friend.....

[mrbojangles]

I'm for it, especially in cases of murder. The jury in my own mind, is still out, if related to a drugs crime.

[kayo]

An alternative could be land mine clearance. There is a definite need for it and what an incentive to do it properly.......................

Nice one Leisurely!

I voted No, under no circumstances.

Most of my reasoning has been mentioned among which,

"Who's Judges the Judges? How can executing a convicted executioner be any better than what the executee has done? How is murder unjustified when commited by a citizen, if his own government justifies it by a fallible court/justice system?

And

What if said court is wrong? What if the person being whacked is NOT the right person?

further cases in point,

Sometimes a murder is commited that was unintended. It may be an accident or a self defence gesture gone awry. sometimes that comes off as involuntary manslaughter, and even then the punishment is too harsh (Usually 10 to 20 yrs). Othertimes though, (and taking into account this infallible court system, influences, etc...) the charges are deemed more serious nonetheless, and then what...? A person who was accidentaly involved in a death gets a punishment that concludes in his own death?

I feel the mannerisms of it all are far too likely to go wrong. Wrong decisions, wrong people, wrong punishment.

Some have mentioned, "IF it were infallible..."

Even if it were, who gets this say so to kill or not to kill? Why should some be accorded this right and others not?

One of the very foundations for a society to live in a decent and humane manner is to respect life.

When we stop (in some nation's cases, if they revert) to respect life, then a key cornerstone of society is destroyed.

There is an irreparable moral black hole in any person who "judges" another should be executed.

And there are many other forms of dealing with the guilty, that, as mentioned, can be far worse. Drop someone off in his enemies territory, for example, in ganglands. Leave peadophile in prison, and to my (limited) knowledge in any country in the world, the inmates will take care of him, in a none too pleasant manner...etc, etc...

So No was my response.

[JimsKnight]

Gut feeling would be 'yes' but reality has to be a resounding 'no'

Instead of sticking them all in jail however for them to enjoy the delights of tax payers money to take care of them, all criminals should be sent to a special army penal squad and then sent off to be the front runners on all front line conflicts around the world. If they survive 5 years in the penal squad then they can be pardoned and sent back to somewhere remote

yeah, that's just what you need in a battle, isnt it? Thieves, rapists and murders leading the frontlines - a truly motivated defence force.

Jeez . . .

I think / hope he was joking on that one stalin.

Well we've had those against capital punishment I'm all for it when its necessary...

I believe a society should have the right to (when necessary) kill those who break the rules and hurt others. Civilisations from the year dot would not of florished if people where given lenient sentences for crimes, if the rules were broken the punishments were harsh, and they had to be as things don't go according to plan if people don't follow the laws.

Society gone soft is one reason for laws being broken in a big way.

Having a death sentence for serious crimes is no good (from a deterrent stance) if the country has a problem with law and order (something for example the UK / USA has right now), because all that happens is you kill a lot of criminals and law and order remains a problem as the large levels of crime continue.

If law and order isn't having a problem with crime, then having a death penalty becomes effective in deterring crime and providing justice to affected family and friends that have suffered thanks to the criminal in question.

If someone knows theres a risk of being killed by capital punishment for doing something wrong then that will may get them to think twice. How is it letting them off easily, telling someone their going to be killed is not going to have them clicking their heels with joy. Some people may not mind incarcaration in prison system for xx amount of time after all at the end of it they get to leave and go home! Indeed in Thai prisons if you have money the time spent there can be relatively comfortable. If not well the situation changes.

From another point of view punishing those in the severest way possible (ie death) to give vengence to the affected families could be argued as a well balanced form of justice. He hurted them so now he must be punished.

Even with having capital punishment in place the form of execution can be debated. Why should a society give someone a 'humane' death like lethal injection.

Should their not at least be some measure of retribution in the pain they have inflicted on others by adjusting the punishment to fit the crime, thus you could say a

The problem with incarcaration is at what degree of humanity should you show to the inmate? The prisoner is housed, fed and looked after at the tax-payers expense. What does a country owe to its citizens who willingly break the laws its made for the good of others. Some would say not much. Does society want them back into the fold? Should rehabilitation be even considered for serious offenders? To answer the question to kill of not to kill is not a simple answer, but one that usually comes across from the mindset of the society that elects the government in place. An classic example is China which definatly sees criminals as the 'untouchables' or outcasts and are very much kept apart from society but in hard labour prisons. Indeed it is a mark of an efficient society where criminals are either put to good use or eliminated entirely,

This is in direct contradiction to the UK where society almost seems to relish lax treatment of law-breakers and trying to make them more like 'one of us'. Half measures (just incarcaration only) can show inefficiency.

Incidentaly the harshest form of punishment I've ever heard that partly answers some questions of executions versus imprisonment was the 'obliette' or 'forgetting place' punishment that was carried out in olde europe. The prisoner was thrown into a dungeon and left to starve to death (with limbs possibly broken prior to being thrown in). He technically wasn't executed but just left to die a miserable slow death from starvation. Now if thats not harsh I don't know what is! That said there are those who perhaps deserve this fate. But if a society adopted this practise now, would they consider / be considered barbaric or mearly meting out strong justice where it is needed?

Answer... There is no easy answer and there never will be as long as other people are at odds with each other.

Edited December 1, 2006 by JimsKnight

[bkkmadness]

100% for it!!!

Even though there is a chance that an innocent person might get it as well?

[sumrit]

An alternative could be land mine clearance. There is a definite need for it and what an incentive to do it properly.......................

Like it, and a life sentence without parole.

[dave111223]

My vote: Yes but only for serious crimes like murder

I think the death penality should only be applied to the really sick b*stard who would without a doubt do it again. I dont think that tax payers should have to pay for the upkeep of these kind of people in jail, and we cant let them back on the street....so that leaves only 1 option for them...

[walg]

I will vote NO even in cases of infidelity!

[Buckwheat]

I will vote NO even in cases of infidelity!