Thai death sentence for Briton

[Stofsk]

I didn't say he should get off lightly either. What I’m getting at is how do you determine whether an offence is atrocious enough to warrant the death penalty. By my code of ethics, drug dealing is on par with murder in terms of harm to others and motives behind the actions.

I know there is a clear distinction between murder, and drug dealing. There is a HUUUGE world of difference (drug dealing, just by itself, is more a stupid crime than it is malicious), not the least of which the drug dealer's 'victims' bring it upon themselves, to a large extent. A drug addict asks for his drugs; a murder victim doesn't ask to be killed. I certainly didn't ask to find my dad lying in front of our house killed by some unknown assailant. I doubt he did either. My brother on the other hand does ask for his drugs. I hope you see where I am coming from.

In case you don't then here is a basic summary: drug dealer's principle motivation is profit, while a murderer is a malicious cunt who brutally destroys someone and leaves that person's family completely and utterly shattered (living in fear for yourself and other loved ones, nightmares and sleepless nights, and constant second guessing and "survivor's guilt" is standard). The victim of drugs has to deal with addiction, and their family has to put up with it or isolate themselves from him. A murder victim is taken from this world prematurely, and his family have to cope with that as best they can (in other words, they'll never get over it). From my perspective, murder is about a billion times worse than drug dealing.

With that in mind, I put the question to you again - would you support the death penalty in this case?

I fully support the death penalty for murderers. For drug dealers, I just can't see it being justified. You might as well have cigarette company execs rounded up and shot (and I would think they're much worse than your average heroin dealer, even though heroin is a worse drug it doesn't have as much exposure that cigarettes have, nor does it contribute to as many deaths per annum IIRC), along with alcohol makers.

[Joy Division]

so i suppose someone selling marijuana, which is a relatively harmless drug to use, would get the exact same capital punishment as someone selling crystal meth under your system? that's a bit sketchy at best.

Not at all. I agree, Marijuana is a relatively harmless drug. The unhappiness generated through sale of that is far less then the unhappiness generated via the sale of Heroin. Incidentally, there is a difference between the people who sell Marijuana and those who sell Heroin. Marijuana is a recreational drug, whereas Heroin is much more insidious in nature. I know people who sell Marijuana and I wouldn't class them in the same league as the career criminals who supply Heroine.

all he's doing is making the drug available. if a gunstore owner sells someone on the street a gun and they commit suicide with it, are you going to hold the gunstore owner responsible for their idiocy? this is why drugs should be regulated as opposed to outlawed. then there would be far greater quality control involved and the ones that are sold are going to have a greater control over the age group they get distributed to.

No, your right. I don't know why drug lords haven’t setup shop on Oxford Road yet.

To expand the metaphor, if that same gun store owner knew that his client was about to walk out the door and put a gun in his mouth, but sold it him anyway, that would be the same thing as a career criminal drug dealer selling Heroin to someone he knows will develop a chemical dependency on his product.

[Stuart]

If one goes to Thailand, one will see there are large notices all over the place. They read, in multiple languages, "Traficking in prohibited drugs is a capital offense. " They are in hotels, bus stations, train stations, airports, everywhere. The same message is also on the radio and television, also in multiple languages. So there is no excuse for not knowing the possessing drugs with an intent to sell carried with it a death penalty.

Whether or not one approves of it is a bit irrelevent; the Thais have decided that trafficing in drugs warrants a death penalty. They have a lot of experience in such things; until 1961 the use of heroin and Thailand was legal and the current attitude towards drugs stems directly from the social damage they observed in that era. Be that as it may, the current laws on drugs are wildly popular with the population as a whole; the general opinion is that they are not enforced rigorously enough. If the issue of capital punishment for drug dealing was put to a referendum vote tomorrow, it would pass by a massive margin.

What really angers people there are the groups of foreigners who come to Thailand, deal in drugs, get arrested and sentenced , then scream "you can't do this to us, we're British/American/Australian/German whatever". The double standard is painful, those governments criticize Thailand quite heavily for not working hard enough to suppress the trade in drugs and then scream blue murder when one of their citizens gets caught and sentenced.

The law in Thailand is that those who trade in drugs will be executed. The law enforcement community worldwide agrees with that approach; you might be surprised how often they set things up so the dealers get arrested in Thailand so they can be executed. If a dealer doesn;t want to be executed then they should keep out of Thailand. Its their law, their country and they like both the way they are.

And before talking about kicking Thai ass, be careful, the Thais might just kick back. First law of survival in that part of the world. DON'T MESS WITH THE ROYAL THAI ARMY

[Joy Division]

By my code of ethics, drug dealing is on par with murder in terms of harm to others and motives behind the actions.

Then your code of ethics sucks. The motivation behind murder it the ending of another human life, and if succesful inevitably results in such.
The motivation behind selling drugs is (usually) to make money off people who willingly buy them. While this DOES result in the death of consumers not only is it not the drug dealer's job to care more for his customer's life than they do, it is by far not inevitable.

I'm speculating, but I think it's a sound assumption that he is a career criminal so he probably is responsible for, directly or indirectly, innocent deaths.

How can he be responsible for the deaths of people who PAY him to give them a substance that is likely to kill them?

If I get roaring drunk, drive and wrap my car around a tree at 150mph is my death the fault of the liquor store?

Two words - Chemical Dependancy.

Now tell me again that these people buy drug of thier own free will.

[Batman]

all he's doing is making the drug available. if a gunstore owner sells someone on the street a gun and they commit suicide with it, are you going to hold the gunstore owner responsible for their idiocy?

To expand the metaphor, if that same gun store owner knew that his client was about to walk out the door and put a gun in his mouth, but sold it him anyway, that would be the same thing as a career criminal drug dealer selling Heroin to someone he knows will develop a chemical dependency on his product.

I agree, it would be the owner being a heartless bastard.
But it would be a legal transaction. Why is selling a gun to a suicidal legal but selling drugs to someone who wants them not?

[General Zod]

Not at all. I agree, Marijuana is a relatively harmless drug. The unhappiness generated through sale of that is far less then the unhappiness generated via the sale of Heroin. Incidentally, there is a difference between the people who sell Marijuana and those who sell Heroin. Marijuana is a recreational drug, whereas Heroin is much more insidious in nature. I know people who sell Marijuana and I wouldn't class them in the same league as the career criminals who supply Heroine.

then don't make sweeping generalizations that all drugs = bad. under your former post anyone selling any illegal drug would be subject to the same sentence.

To expand the metaphor, if that same gun store owner knew that his client was about to walk out the door and put a gun in his mouth, but sold it him anyway, that would be the same thing as a career criminal drug dealer selling Heroin to someone he knows will develop a chemical dependency on his product.

false analogy. in one scenario each person selling the item in question is doing so with the expectation that their client is still going to be alive. with the exception of a rare handful, drugs will not automatically kill you after using them once so long as the quality is good.

[Batman]

How can he be responsible for the deaths of people who PAY him to give them a substance that is likely to kill them?

Two words - Chemical Dependancy.
Now tell me again that these people buy drug of thier own free will.

Oh, my mistake. I was under the impression that that only sets in once you start taking the drug.
If you start doing drugs you have decided that you're willing to live with that.
Why should the drug desler protect you from your own stupidity?

[General Zod]

Two words - Chemical Dependancy.

Now tell me again that these people buy drug of thier own free will.

are you saying everyone buying a drug for the first time is doing so out of chemical dependency? or did they buy it because they chose to do so?

[SecondStorm]

Death penalty for drug dealing ? HELL no.

10+ years in jail ? Definately.

[AniThyng]

Death penalty for drug dealing ? HELL no.

10+ years in jail ? Definately.

10 years is nothing to these people who traffic heroin and other drugs of its ilk. they come out and they're back at it selling hard drugs. why should i be forced to contribute my tax money to feed and house them in jails when i can have them hung?

[Gandalf]

In this instance, I say just imprison him somewhere for a few years. A few years in a Thai jail can't be pleasant.

I am against the death penalty except in the most extreme of cases.

[Master of Ossus]

On the one hand, the law is really harsh in this case.

On the other hand, his sentence shouldn't be reduced because he's an English citizen. If a Thai person would be sentenced to death on the same charges, they ought to kill him. But the law should be changed and he should get a lengthy stay in prison, instead.

[Slartibartfast]

A Briton has been sentenced to death and another to 33 years in prison in Thailand over drugs charges.

Man, he's really going to stink up that prison after 33 years. Can't they just bury him?

[RedImperator]

I do like the idea of letting drug-pushers know they can be killed too, but drug-dealing is not a crime worthy of death.

Sadly it is the only way a country could ever possibly win the war on drugs.

Except, apparently, they're not, because there's a large enough market in Thailand to motivate people to risk selling there.

[Howedar]

I do not support the death penalty in this or any other trafficking case. That said, I'd be disgusted if his penalty was reduced because of his nationality.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except, apparently, they're not, because there's a large enough market in Thailand to motivate people to risk selling there.

Very true. However, in my opinion it still has the best chance of success. The only other way to win would be to join them.

[salm]

10 years is nothing to these people who traffic heroin and other drugs of its ilk. they come out and they're back at it selling hard drugs. why should i be forced to contribute my tax money to feed and house them in jails when i can have them hung?

yeah. why should we be forced to contribute tax money to feed and house any people in jail when we can have them hung?

i propose a general death penalty for all crimes.

it´s obvious that draconic laws like this don´t work at all. see thailand, see the us war on drugs.

[Kamakazie Sith]

10 years is nothing to these people who traffic heroin and other drugs of its ilk. they come out and they're back at it selling hard drugs. why should i be forced to contribute my tax money to feed and house them in jails when i can have them hung?

yeah. why should we be forced to contribute tax money to feed and house any people in jail when we can have them hung?

i propose a general death penalty for all crimes.

it´s obvious that draconic laws like this don´t work at all. see thailand, see the us war on drugs.

So what do you propose then?

[Joy Division]

I agree, it would be the owner being a heartless bastard.
But it would be a legal transaction. Why is selling a gun to a suicidal legal but selling drugs to someone who wants them not?

It's legal to sell a gun to someone who is suicidal? Where are you from? But it's still immoral, right?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Very true. However, in my opinion it still has the best chance of success. The only other way to win would be to join them.

You mean legalise but heavily tax and limit the drug flow, right?

[Joy Division]

then don't make sweeping generalizations that all drugs = bad. under your former post anyone selling any illegal drug would be subject to the same sentence.

I'm not making a generalisation, I'm clarifying the point.

false analogy. in one scenario each person selling the item in question is doing so with the expectation that their client is still going to be alive. with the exception of a rare handful, drugs will not automatically kill you after using them once so long as the quality is good.

I didn't make the analogy, I merely expanded it. What i'm getting at is that in both situations the dealer is acting immoral.

[General Zod]

then don't make sweeping generalizations that all drugs = bad. under your former post anyone selling any illegal drug would be subject to the same sentence.

I'm not making a generalisation, I'm clarifying the point.

you made the sweeping generalization in your last post. that was my point.

false analogy. in one scenario each person selling the item in question is doing so with the expectation that their client is still going to be alive. with the exception of a rare handful, drugs will not automatically kill you after using them once so long as the quality is good.

I didn't make the analogy, I merely expanded it. What i'm getting at is that in both situations the dealer is acting immoral.

no, you completely changed my example. i'll spell it out for you. in each case the individual is making a lawful transaction. what they do with an item after the transaction is not the fault of the person selling it. using your idiotic logic we should hold drug stores responsible for a person's death when someone overdoses on sleeping pills.

[Batman]

It's legal to sell a gun to someone who is suicidal? Where are you from? But it's still immoral, right?

If it's illegal to do so in the UK, or anywhere else, that's news to me (not that means I'm right, I hardly know my own country's laws, leave alone others.
IF anybody can clarifly that would be appreciated).
Define immoral. Am I morally required to keep someone who has apperently decided that the harm the product will do to him is worth the benefits he believes he gets from it? Keep in mind that most drugs are not inherently lethal, it's usually impurities or OD's that kill.
WHY IS THE DEALER REQUIRED TO CARE MORE ABOUT THE CLIENT'S HEALTH THAN THE CLIENT DOES?
Not I can recall any civilized country that legally requires it's citizens to behave morally, mind you.

[HemlockGrey]

why should i be forced to contribute my tax money to feed and house them in jails when i can have them hung?

Hell, lots of criminals have a statistical probability of reoffending, why don't we just shoot most of them?

[Sea Skimmer]

Hell, lots of criminals have a statistical probability of reoffending, why don't we just shoot most of them?

Because we can reuse a good stout rope, unlike ammunition.