High court rejects suspended jailterm

[webfact]

High court rejects suspended jailterm

 

 

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court has rejected a request for suspended jailterm of a woman who was sentenced to one-year imprisonment for ramming her pick-up truck into a father and his 5-year old daughter, killing the former and seriously injuring the latter.

 

The dead victim, 42-year old Mr Panutat Saksitphan, and his daughter, Narasiri, alias Nong Cartoon, were in front of their grilled steak shop at the mouth of Soi Ekkachai 119, Bangbon district, when a pick-up truck driven by Ms Nampoeng Jaisa-ngiam rammed into them. The incident took place two years ago.

 

Panutat was killed at the scene while his daughter suffered serious injured. She was later diagnosed of suffering brain damage and loss of eyesight.

 

The Supreme Court imposed a one-year imprisonment on Ms Nampoeng and also ordered to pay six million baht in compensation to the two victims.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/high-court-rejects-suspended-jailterm/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-11-10

[berybert]

Have I got this right. This woman who killed a father and left his daughter brain damaged is appealing against a 1 year jail sentence for something that happened 2 years ago ?

Does she get to choose when to do the sentence and is it possible to do a day a year ?

Yet another joke sentence if I have it right..

[z42]

This has got to be 1 of the worst stories i have EVER read here, 1 year in jail for killing and permanently disabling 2 people. Absolutely immoral. When defamation and "computer crimes" sentences are recommended as 5X that, and drug dealing sentences 20X to 50X that, it simply leaves you scratching your head as to who comes up with the idea that such ludicrous sentences  even remotely resemble justice.

Sick to my stomach reading this. If my girls were killed / disabled this way I would simply not accept the judgement, and would risk jail / deportation to seek a more appropriate level of justice to achieve closure. Just wow, scary.

[trogers]

Welcome to the Land of No Precedent...

[maoro2013]

The law applies to some and not others.

 

She mustn't have enough money so where does the 6 million come from?

[Brer Fox]

3 hours ago, z42 said:

This has got to be 1 of the worst stories i have EVER read here, 1 year in jail for killing and permanently disabling 2 people. Absolutely immoral. When defamation and "computer crimes" sentences are recommended as 5X that, and drug dealing sentences 20X to 50X that, it simply leaves you scratching your head as to who comes up with the idea that such ludicrous sentences  even remotely resemble justice.

Sick to my stomach reading this. If my girls were killed / disabled this way I would simply not accept the judgement, and would risk jail / deportation to seek a more appropriate level of justice to achieve closure. Just wow, scary.

No surprises here. If he can afford to pay 6 million in compensation to the victims families he can presumably afford to pay "compensation" to others involved in his prosecution and conviction. Like the old saying......"you get what you pay for". That seems to apply to Thai justice also.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Was this an accident or intentional?

[sandemara]

Thai law states responsibility for the debts incurred by a wife are to be shared equally with the husband. I don't know if this extends to requiring couples to liquidate assets (property etc) to meet debt obligations?

[Grubster]

Not nearly enough information about the crash, for all i know he may have been in the wrong. Was he double parked in the middle of a highway? Were they on foot standing in the road? Could be a million different scenarios.

                       If reckless or drunk driving involved then ok, nothing is mentioned of that. If reckless homicide was not proven I would think this sentence is harsh. If it is proven then sentence is to lax.

                    No matter what it must be hard to convict and sentence anybody after all the other cases we have seen blow over.

[sweatalot]

The story doesn't go into the circumstances of the killing.

May be it was a tragic accident - not premeditated murder

[ratcatcher]

7 hours ago, Brer Fox said:

No surprises here. If he can afford to pay 6 million in compensation to the victims families he can presumably afford to pay "compensation" to others involved in his prosecution and conviction. Like the old saying......"you get what you pay for". That seems to apply to Thai justice also.

"If he can afford to pay...."

a request for suspended jailterm of a woman 

[Prbkk]

And Red Bull continues to evade what they are pleased to call 'the law'

[optad]

9 hours ago, trogers said:

Welcome to the Land of No Precedent...

Banal trolls aside, is this factually correct? 

[trogers]

7 minutes ago, optad said:

Banal trolls aside, is this factually correct? 

 

Google Law Precedent Thailand

[bokningar]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Not nearly enough information about the crash, for all i know he may have been in the wrong. Was he double parked in the middle of a highway? Were they on foot standing in the road? Could be a million different scenarios.

                       If reckless or drunk driving involved then ok, nothing is mentioned of that. If reckless homicide was not proven I would think this sentence is harsh. If it is proven then sentence is to lax.

                    No matter what it must be hard to convict and sentence anybody after all the other cases we have seen blow over.

Seriously did you bother reading the article and did you see the picture where the car smashed in to the grilled steak shop????

From the article'

The dead victim, 42-year old Mr Panutat Saksitphan, and his daughter, Narasiri, alias Nong Cartoon, were in front of their grilled steak shop at the mouth of Soi Ekkachai 119, Bangbon district, when a pick-up truck driven by Ms Nampoeng Jaisa-ngiam rammed into them

 

[optad]

13 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

Google Law Precedent Thailand

That is a bit of a non answer. Read that wiki.

 

I understand Thai law is  a codified system but surprised at your comment 'precedence' is not participatory in its codification, ie  does not adapt laws to affect future cases.

 

Classic, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Any West Wingers out there will understand this one. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by optad

[chainarong]

She really should have been charged with murder and attempted murder , weird place this Thailand road rage is spiraling out into space, with an ineffectual dumb police force who are now smarting getting caught on camera, everything speaks for itself , they need Donald Trump to sort this mob of misfits out...............................................

[Grubster]

15 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Seriously did you bother reading the article and did you see the picture where the car smashed in to the grilled steak shop????

From the article'

The dead victim, 42-year old Mr Panutat Saksitphan, and his daughter, Narasiri, alias Nong Cartoon, were in front of their grilled steak shop at the mouth of Soi Ekkachai 119, Bangbon district, when a pick-up truck driven by Ms Nampoeng Jaisa-ngiam rammed into them

 

Yes I read the article and saw the truck, it doesn't say anywhere what the truck smashed into, I can tell you two human bodies didn't do that to a truck. By this article can you tell the the man and his girl were not in a vehicle in front of the store? can you tell where in front of the store they were? Can you say that the truck may or may not have been trying to avoid a separate accident?  If you could convict on what you read in this article then I hope you aren't a judge. I'm sure they could have shown and said much more that would probably make me agree with guilt but they didn't.

[bokningar]

And you can't see smashed ting all the way in to the shop.

And that together with what it says "The dead victim, 42-year old Mr Panutat Saksitphan, and his daughter, Narasiri, alias Nong Cartoon, were in front of their grilled steak shop at the mouth of Soi Ekkachai 119, Bangbon district, when a pick-up truck driven by Ms Nampoeng Jaisa-ngiam rammed into them" 

Not say on the road, not say  in any car. Do you see any other car?  I don't.

 

I have no extraordinarie powers to tell you what happend before the car smashed in to the father, daughter and what it looks like all the way in to the shop.

I don't know if the driver was using cocaine going 150 km/h smashing a street light before hitting innocent people either!

So I don't speculate about it! 

 

 

 

[maoro2013]

We are not supplied with much information about the 'accident' itself. Probably more to it.

[jasonsamui55]

On 11/10/2016 at 6:21 AM, z42 said:

This has got to be 1 of the worst stories i have EVER read here, 1 year in jail for killing and permanently disabling 2 people. Absolutely immoral. When defamation and "computer crimes" sentences are recommended as 5X that, and drug dealing sentences 20X to 50X that, it simply leaves you scratching your head as to who comes up with the idea that such ludicrous sentences  even remotely resemble justice.

Sick to my stomach reading this. If my girls were killed / disabled this way I would simply not accept the judgement, and would risk jail / deportation to seek a more appropriate level of justice to achieve closure. Just wow, scary.

 

I think any living human would feel the same way and do the same thing! But TiT.

[mike324]

theft, drug use, free speech gets you more prison time then the killing. But the news never mentioned why the car rammed into the stall, wonder if it was accidental.

[George Graham]

On 10/11/2016 at 5:39 PM, optad said:

Banal trolls aside, is this factually correct? 

Yes. Most definitely.

[George Graham]

On 10/11/2016 at 6:17 PM, Grubster said:

Yes I read the article and saw the truck, it doesn't say anywhere what the truck smashed into, I can tell you two human bodies didn't do that to a truck. By this article can you tell the the man and his girl were not in a vehicle in front of the store? can you tell where in front of the store they were? Can you say that the truck may or may not have been trying to avoid a separate accident?  If you could convict on what you read in this article then I hope you aren't a judge. I'm sure they could have shown and said much more that would probably make me agree with guilt but they didn't.

Oh dear Grubster. You say you read the article then you go on to ask questions which clearly show that you didn't.

[Grubster]

4 hours ago, George Graham said:

Oh dear Grubster. You say you read the article then you go on to ask questions which clearly show that you didn't.

Well George does it say they were "standing" in front of their store. NO  Could they have been in a vehicle in from of their store. YES  Could they have been standing, walking or running in front of their store in the road? YES  Where in this article does it state whether or not they were in a vehicle when they were hit?  where does it say what caused the damage to the truck? There are hundreds of things you don't know from this article.      If you can't see that then you are dense as a stone.