Jump to content

Two who killed man for iPhone sentenced to death


webfact

Recommended Posts

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

 

6fe489fe91e1e189581ceb420417895c.jpg

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

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-05-31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bluespunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 
khaosodeng_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2017-05-31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by G Marks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bluespunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.... :shock1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...