The Thai know how to deal with crime

Forums › Off topic › The Thai know how to deal with crime

Adamal

544 posts

Ultimate Geek

Topic # 24851 4-Aug-2008 23:14

Read this on Fudzilla just now:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8740&Itemid=1

"If found guilty the teen faces death by lethal injection."

Thats the sort of thing we need in todays society. A judicial system that says that it ain't going to take cr*p from some stupid punk who commits a cold blooded crime and thinks he can get away with it by blaming it on a video game.

Dratsab

3064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 909

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 154250 5-Aug-2008 11:32

Typical of how no-one takes responsibility for their actions anymore.

Jonski

242 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 29

Reply # 154691 6-Aug-2008 16:48

Uh, no?

So how did Thailand having a death penalty prevent the teen from killing someone? Sure, he'll be executed for the crime, but it didn't seem much of a deterrent.

Research in the US shows that the likelihood of executing a death row prisoner is directly proportional to their literacy. Not in any way related to the severity of their crime or the possibility of their being innocent. Such is Justice.

Sigh.

Jon

I reject your reality and substitute my own!
- Adam Savage, Mythbuster

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user

Reply # 154711 6-Aug-2008 17:58

Good point Jon, if we put all the illiterate to death we should be able to pretty much stop crime.

Adamal

544 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 154767 6-Aug-2008 21:08

Jonski: So how did Thailand having a death penalty prevent the teen from killing someone? Sure, he'll be executed for the crime, but it didn't seem much of a deterrent.

Do you remember a couple of years ago, there was a 17 year old kid named Liam who stole off with his parents car. His parents wanted to teach him a bit of a lesson, so got him a ride in the back of a 'Paddy Wagon' to spend a night in a cell.
He didn't come out of the wagon alive. He had his neck broken by one of the other criminals riding in it at the time.

Do you know what his killer said?

"Whats it matter? I'm already a conviected killer. What are they gonna do?"

If there were a death penatly in place, maybe he would have thought twice about killing him. He may even not have killed the original person he was in there for.

It may not have been a deterent for the kid in Thailand. But the effect of a death penelty cannot be measured by numbers of people _not_ murdered. The closest they could do would be statistical figures between the time before implimenting it, and after.

Dratsab

3064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 909

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 154815 7-Aug-2008 00:43

Adamal:
Jonski: So how did Thailand having a death penalty prevent the teen from killing someone? Sure, he'll be executed for the crime, but it didn't seem much of a deterrent.

Do you remember a couple of years ago, there was a 17 year old kid named Liam who stole off with his parents car. His parents wanted to teach him a bit of a lesson, so got him a ride in the back of a 'Paddy Wagon' to spend a night in a cell.
He didn't come out of the wagon alive. He had his neck broken by one of the other criminals riding in it at the time.

Do you know what his killer said?

"Whats it matter? I'm already a conviected killer. What are they gonna do?"

If there were a death penatly in place, maybe he would have thought twice about killing him. He may even not have killed the original person he was in there for.

It may not have been a deterent for the kid in Thailand. But the effect of a death penelty cannot be measured by numbers of people _not_ murdered. The closest they could do would be statistical figures between the time before implimenting it, and after.

There's no evidence to show that capital punishment has any deterrent effect whatsoever on people who, given the right circumstances, will commit murder - or any other horrific crime/s.

Many criminals, or those habitually involved in criminal activity, do not think of consequence, they think only of their immediate needs. A major factor that aids this thinking is the belief they will not be apprehended. It's a little different in the case of Liam which you cite - his killer simply perceived he had nothing to lose, therefore he had no psychological restraints to curb his actions.

I have no idea what happened in the court case resulting from the above example, but I imagine the killer will have blamed the victim for what happened, thereby (in his mind) avoiding responsibility.

The actions of the young man in Thailand highlight this lack of forward thinking quite clearly. He would have been quite aware of the death penalty but this has not altered his actions. He was only interested in his being at that point in time. After the killing he has tried to cover up his mess, but this is not because he thought of what the possible outcomes might be before, or even during, the committal of his crime. Those thoughts came later, hence the subsequent attempt at a cover up.

Adamal - I'm not disagreeing with the notion of capital punishment, but I do disagree with the deterrent argument.

billgates

3829 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

Trusted

Reply # 154816 7-Aug-2008 00:59

^ Death Penalty is a very goog reason for countres like Singapore, UAE and Saudi Arabia where everyone thinks 10times before carrying drugs through the airport.....there is a good reason why crime is so low in Singapore and UAE....you can walk out at 2am on the street and no one would dare touch you....saying that I only approve of the death penalty if there is very strong evidence of the conviction...if someone plants drugs in your suitcase at the airport and airport does not have a video recording then I'd say jail term but most airports now have very good CCTV system inplace after the 9/11 attacks....

regarding this thread, I would completley disapporve of the death penalty in this case. The 18 year old wanted to immitate a game and it went horribly bad....he had no intention to kill the cab driver....he wanted to rob him but things got ugly and cab driver died....saying this, this does not also means that we should ban GTA4 either....

Byrned

453 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

Reply # 154851 7-Aug-2008 09:05

I really have mixed thoughts on the death penalty. I agree that it doesn't act as a deterrent, and it seems a lot of the people being out to death are either illiterate, or poor and unable to afford a decent defence.

That said though I think in crimes that are heinous and proven beyond any doubt - well lets just say I think its a way of saying you can't be part of soceity now!

skykissme

216 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 154933 7-Aug-2008 13:00

Reading on Reuter (Thailand), don't see anything about "If found guilty the teen faces death by lethal injection."

I lived in Thailand for more than 20 years, whenever a death penalty is final verdict, it's normally mean the person will be in prison for many odd 100 years. Most prisoners die before that anyway, age, living condition, fighting with other prisoners, etc.

The real death penalty, literately have prisoner's head chopped off, was a few years before I was born.

Well.. unless Thai government final take up some idea of REAL death penalty from other countries, execution by gun shot - China, electrocute - some part of USA and Singapore (I think).

But to be sure, I might have a word with my family about that tonight..

We'll never be too old to learn, and we learn at least one new thing every day.

Jonski

242 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 29

Reply # 154936 7-Aug-2008 13:11

kiwitrc: Good point Jon, if we put all the illiterate to death we should be able to pretty much stop crime.

LOL. A friend uses the term LDF to refer to those Lazy Dumb F[guess the missing letters]ks who, no matter how much money they might have, or chances they're given, are chronically unable to do anything good with it.

For example, those cases of someone on the dole winning lotto and spending the lot with nothing much to show for it and ending back up on the dole again. Happened a few years ago..?

And of course pathologically antisocial types would be inclined to think of the here and now, kill someone and then go for the blame game. But where do you draw the line, who's mad, who's bad, and who is a mixture of both (most of them I'd say)?

Ah, get rid of that class of people who are ne'er do wells and we'll not have any more crime. Except for white collar crime (embezzlement, theft as a servant, upper-class drug peddlers) of course. And crimes of passion- catch your wife in bed with another man, you'd be sorely tempted to punch the living cr@p out of him. What if he fell back and hit his head on the corner of the table, cracked his skull and died? Death row for you too?

I just hate it when some whiny ratbag claims "I've got rights" when nobody mentions that with rights come responsibilities. From being responsible for your own actions, to being responsible for helping society generally. It's all our responsibility to report crime, to act as a witness, to serve on a jury but so many people shirk their responsibilities and then complain that we're all heading to hell in a handcart.

The death penalty does not act as a deterrent. It's one's own moral compass that does. That's why athiests can be moral without being scared a god is going to punish them in the afterlife- they know what's right and wrong because society knows what's right and wrong. All the death penalty does is satiate the baying pack's desire for blood. And that's not a good enough reason in my book.

[/rant]

Enough. I have work to do!

Cheers
Jon

I reject your reality and substitute my own!
- Adam Savage, Mythbuster

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user

Reply # 154942 7-Aug-2008 13:32

Excellent Rant Jon! You are correct, if we put all the LDF and illiterates to death who would run the country and host breakfast TV?

1gkar

722 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 155374 9-Aug-2008 10:26

An interesting topic, one that will cause most to be on one side or the other, usually with few fence-sitting. I am on the 'knock the b*&%@*#^ off' side. Not quite what Sir Ed had in mind with his famous quote.

The real issue as I see it is our country is too imbalanced towards the criminals. There is NO deterrent towards minor crime like burgling, wantant vandalism, etc. If you are on the verge of criminal activity, why would I consider the licit side of the Law when there is a greater-than-50% chance of not getting caught? If you do, then a slap with 'a wet bus ticket' for a sentence does nothing to sway one back to lawful abidance. Hell, with plasma TVs & underfloor heating & all the mates inside, is it any wonder released convicts often prefer the confines of jail. All the while, the victim is often left to fend for themselves.

[myrant]
Add to this, we live in a society where we are now the only animals in Earth's history who do not instill discipline in its young. The young learn from having boundaries set. In the wild, if the young transgress these limits, they often die. Before respondents start talking about child abuse, I'm NOT referring to abuse, I'm talking discipline: there is a difference. Would YOU want to be a teacher in today's environment of adolescant anachary? Count me out. I'm not interested being verbally or physically abused by children unable to define acceptable limits.

If any young are not allowed to find acceptable limits within a 'civilised' society by boundary-setting, they have no way to understand what is permissable in a society governed by Laws. We are, afterall, creatures of rote: we learn by doing. Afterall, that is all a habit is, an act formed by continual repetition. The habit doesn't know if it's good or bad. If we learn to do bad things with impunity, the feeling becomes this IS allowed. This, then, has the tendency to build with more & more young believing they can transgress without penalty. Hence, where we find ourselves today. In a situation with human beings who would probably be productive, law-abidding citizens if properly trained during their formative years are minor criminals with no understanding of their wrong-doing.

[/myrant]

Okay, where am I going with my rant. It is to qualify this: if any animal learns to lose respect for its surroundings (eg. people's property) then it is a short step to losing respect for life in general. People like Bell, who commited those henious RSA murders whilst on parole, should not be given a second chance, they deserve death. Then definitely DON'T DESERVE to be treated to a life of relative luxury at the people's expense. Clear out the scum & free up jail cells for the lesser crimes.

Finally, it is bull & a cop-out that because one person doesn't have the same opportunities as someone like myself, they should be given more leeway in the eyes of the law. Every human raised in New Zealand is brought up in the same conditions with an intelligence that is capable of considering their actions!

Silverstone LC14 HTPC Case/Intel E4600 CPU/GA-EP35-DS3 MOBO/Asus EN9500GT graphics/2GB RAM/total 2TB HDD space/HVR-2200 & 2X 150MCE tuner cards/LG GGC-H20L BD Drive/MCE2005/Mediaportal/TVServer 1.1.0Final/LG 55"3D LED-TV/Denon AVR-1803 receiver/X1 projector

nzsouthernman

44 posts

Geek

Reply # 157602 17-Aug-2008 22:17

Here's my $.02 worth. The death penalty has many upsides & downsides - the deterrant factor (minor really) is on the upside list, as is the decreased cost to the taxpayer of keeping the murdering criminals behind bars for the remainder of their lives. On the downside is the very real possibility of convicting the wrong person for the crime. Remember Arthur Allen Thomas? Perhaps David Bain & Scott Watson as well?
In NZ I'd personally rather not have the death penalty back as in high profile investigations the NZ Police seem to have a tendancy to decide who's guilty immediately and look for the evidence to support their theory as opposed to the perferrable way of finding out as muchas possible first and then look for the cuplrit based on the evidence.
[/rant]

Anyway, what *would* be nice is to institute a HARD LABOUR component of being behind bars in NZ prisons. What would be more of a deterrant to most criminals that the thought that they'll have to work 12h per day and get 15c/hour payment for it while inside?

Think of the cost saving to the taxpayer - that hard labour could be used to assist building the roading in Auckland thus saving a ton of cash over several years, not to mention many many other projects that need manpower to achieve. The government could contract out the criminals to contracting companies and recoup back the cost of giving them a cell/food/guards etc etc.

Also, how thought that Playstations, TV's, DVD players and couches are good things for prisoners to have in prison? Isn't the whole point of prison to make them *wish* they weren't there in the first place????

Hmmm.