Two who killed man for iPhone sentenced to death

[webfact]

Two who killed man for iPhone sentenced to death
By The Nation

 

Supatchai Chansi, (left) and Kittikorn Wiphana are taken to the Criminal Court to hear the ruling against them Wednesday.

 

BANGKOK: -- Two men have been sentenced to die for killing a man over his iPhone in January.

 

The Criminal Court on Wednesday sentenced Kittikorn Wiphana, 26, and Supatchai Chansi, 25, to death, declining to commute the sentence even though they confessed to the crime.

 

The court reasoned that they pleaded guilty only because the evidence against them was so strong.

 

Prosecutors presented a CCTV surveillance recording that showed Kittikorn stabbing Wasin Luangjaem several times in the torso and once in his throat before snatching his mobile phone and fleeing on a motorcycle driven by Supatchai.

 

The murder occurred at 11pm on January 4 at the mouth of Soi Sukhonsawat 27 in Bangkok’s Lat Phrao district. The men were arrested in Nonthaburi the following day.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30316814

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-05-31

[cornishcarlos]

About time this lawless society was reigned in... Will it deter others ? Lets hope so....

[saakura]

The sentence should be carried out immediately.

[DLang]

Good riddance! 

[Prbkk]

5 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

About time this lawless society was reigned in... Will it deter others ? Lets hope so....

But of course it doesn't act as a deterrent, proven time after time around the world. It might meet the need for vengeance, might make people feel safer...but it will not serve any useful purpose .

[the donger]

7 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

About time this lawless society was reigned in... Will it deter others ? Lets hope so....

No it wont, because people don't expect to be caught or weigh the pros/cons. Murder isn't a rational decision.  

 

 

These two have wasted the poor victims life and their own. 

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, webfact said:

The Criminal Court on Wednesday sentenced Kittikorn Wiphana, 26, and Supatchai Chansi, 25, to death, declining to commute the sentence even though they confessed to the crime.

 

The court reasoned that they pleaded guilty only because the evidence against them was so strong.

While I don't agree with the halving of sentences for confessing, why should the fact there is strong evidence make a difference in applying the rule?

Edited May 31, 2017 by Bluespunk

[webfact]

iPhone killer gets death sentence

By Sasiwan Mokkhasen, Staff Reporter

 

BANGKOK — Two ex-convicts who stabbed a man to death stealing his iPhone were given death sentences by the Criminal Court on Wednesday.

 

Kittikorn Wikaha, 26, and Supattanachai Chansri, 25, did not get reduced sentences despite confessing to stabbing Vasin Lueangcham, 26, on a January night in northern Bangkok, an attack that prompted national revulsion when footage of it was widely watched.

 

WARNING! Graphic content

 

 

Full story:  http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2017/05/31/iphone-killer-gets-death-sentence/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2017-05-31

[cornishcarlos]

14 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

But of course it doesn't act as a deterrent, proven time after time around the world. It might meet the need for vengeance, might make people feel safer...but it will not serve any useful purpose .

 

Better stick with the 500 baht fine system then, that seems to work a treat !!

[smutcakes]

Just goes to show justice can be served. Although it also goes how different the serving of justice can be. On the one hand a callous murder has ended with a quick sentencing, on the other a callous running over of an officer of the law is 4-5 years old and still no action. (Again it has suddenly gone very very quiet. Would be worth finding out whether Thailand did actually file anything with Interpol or just talked a lot and waited for it to blow over again)

[lupin]

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

While I don't agree with the halving of sentences for confessing, why should the fact there is strong evidence make a difference in applying the rule?

My understanding in this, and I may be wrong,  was that they confessed only after having seen the overwhelming evidence against them....

[shady86]

They get what they deserved. I'm still amazed with people opposing death penalty because only strict law will deter people from committing these kind of crimes.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Prbkk]

1 minute ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

Better stick with the 500 baht fine system then, that seems to work a treat !!

No, I think 30 years would be a good starting point. 

[Ramen087]

1 hour ago, Prbkk said:

No, I think 30 years would be a good starting point. 

I agree with you  Paulie Walnuts. Do you mean 30 years minimum time served?

Edited May 31, 2017 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[cornishcarlos]

2 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

No, I think 30 years would be a good starting point. 

 

Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The world is over populated as it is, we really don't need low lifes killing for IPhones... Just my opinion :)

[darksidedog]

While I believe sentencing for some things int his country is ridiculously high, this one I applaud. Hopefully we will see more of the same and the thieving scum on the streets will take note and get a job, instead of ruining other peoples lives.

[J Smith]

Good riddance to bad rubbish but........... How did the second fella get the death sentence too?  He doesn't seem to have a knife or in fact hardly touch the victim, surely he could plea his way out of that easy enough?   Accessory to murder at best.

Edited May 31, 2017 by G Marks

[sanemax]

Im in two minds .

Its a severe sentence , but after seeing the video.................

[putsinker]

20 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

While I don't agree with the halving of sentences for confessing, why should the fact there is strong evidence make a difference in applying the rule?

I suppose the thinking was, that they would not have confessed had they thought they could get away with it, so their confessions didn,t carry much weight. They must be pretty evil characters anyway to have done this. I am only an advocate of the death sentence if it 100% sure that they are guilty, In  this case, the world is surely better off without them.

 

[TheLobster]

The death sentence is the way to go in undisputed cases like this. No point in wasting money keeping these animals alive.

[steven100]

good riddance .....   you took that poor guys life away.

rot in hell.

[richard_smith237]

Regardless of the discussion of whether or not the Death Penalty acts as a deterrent or whether or not its is morally correct for society to judge and impose the death penalty, the simple response is that this sentence removes a person who has proven that he doesn't deserve to be part of society from society at minimal long term cost to society. 

 

This man killed cold bloodily, there was irrefutable evidence - this is a logical and just sentence. 

 

He will not have the opportunity to kill an innocent member of the public again. 

 

 

 

 

[Bezdomny]

I hope for same penalty for those scumbags who murdered disabled man in Bangkok. Wait, they were policeman sons?

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, lupin said:

My understanding in this, and I may be wrong,  was that they confessed only after having seen the overwhelming evidence against them....

Yeah, maybe. However, the fact is if there is a law in place it should be adhered to.

 

Or is it that the judge has the discretion to half a sentence, but there is no automatic right to it if you confess?

[Thechook]

38 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

But of course it doesn't act as a deterrent, proven time after time around the world. It might meet the need for vengeance, might make people feel safer...but it will not serve any useful purpose .

It serves a great purpose.  Two pieces of garbage are being taken out

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, putsinker said:

I suppose the thinking was, that they would not have confessed had they thought they could get away with it, so their confessions didn,t carry much weight. They must be pretty evil characters anyway to have done this. I am only an advocate of the death sentence if it 100% sure that they are guilty, In  this case, the world is surely better off without them.

 

Oh I have no problem with these men not getting leniency [though I do have a problem with the death penalty, but that's another argument].

 

However, if there are sentencing guidelines/procedures in place then they should be adhered to.

 

Unless, of course, it is a discretionary power granted to judges...

Edited May 31, 2017 by Bluespunk

[bkkcanuck8]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah, maybe. However, the fact is if there is a law in place it should be adhered to.

 

Or is it that the judge has the discretion to half a sentence, but there is no automatic right to it if you confess?

Yeah, cut their sentence in half.... only their top half of their body along with their heart and brain are executed, the bottom half commuted.... 

[bkkcanuck8]

41 minutes ago, the donger said:

No it wont, because people don't expect to be caught or weigh the pros/cons. Murder isn't a rational decision.  

 

 

These two have wasted the poor victims life and their own. 

Actually, if the murder is premeditated... and not a crime of passion or accident in commission of anther crime.... it is actually quite a rational decision.   It is however not typically a deterrent because very little weight is given to the thought of getting caught....

[alfalfa19]

Good riddance, cockroaches.  I only wish they could take the place of the KT frame victims.  That would kill 2 birds with one stone. 

[catman20]

1 hour ago, saakura said:

The sentence should be carried out immediately.

yes show them no mercy as they did