News Forum - ‘Joe Ferrari’ and 6 other police, face death penalty

[JohninDublin]

4 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

I have been to Zanussi. I had a girlfriend there. She was green. Everyone said it would not last. 

So she wasn't an evergreen?

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

I think the courts will take that into consideration as far as the activities of each individual involved 

You do have to think, that if he new he was going to be "grassed-up", he would probably have killed that cop too.

[Jason]

I can't see the death penalty happening.....big headline...unrealistic. Let's just wait to see what happens in the trial....

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

I’m all for the death penalty 90% of the time but in this case ,they are cops and we know what happens to sex offenders and jailed cops in prison.

Black bag Joe  what do you know 

Just a general question not particularly directed at you.

Yesterday, we read of an execution in Singapore of an "intellectually disabled" man being delayed due to Covid. Whether it was the circumstances or a general opposition to the DP, I got the impression that most of the posters on that thread were opposed to the DP. 

Here we have a man who appears to be a monster, and it would not surprise me if there were other bodies attributable to him. It seems apparent he did not acquire all his wealth working all the overtime he could for the RTP. I'd be interested to know how many of those who were not impressed by the impending execution in Singapore, would also oppose the execution of anyone found guilty in this case?

[Soidog]

Enough has been said about what a scumbag this guy is. However, a murder charge is a difficult one I would have thought? Even in the U.K. I think a charge of Murder would be hard to prove. I’m no legal expert but I assume murder has to show it was premeditated. There is no doubt the actions caused his death, but was that their intention from the start? I would think a number of other charges will stick, but not murder? 

[Stonker]

37 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

"All 7 police have been discharged from duty but retain their ranks in the police force, pending the outcome of the trial, although they’ve been held in Bangkok’s Klong Prem prison during the investigations".

Does that mean that they can arrest criminals they are locked up with? 

Being discharged from the police or the military and retaining their ranks are two different things, not only in Thailand but in most countries (all that I'm aware of) .

It's a bit nit-picky (which I'm apparently famous for ) but unless someone's formally stripped of their rank or reduced in rank, even if dishonourably discharged, they still retain their rank although they can't exercise it as they're no longer serving.

[JohninDublin]

52 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Being discharged from the police or the military and retaining their ranks are two different things, not only in Thailand but in most countries (all that I'm aware of) .

It's a bit nit-picky (which I'm apparently famous for ) but unless someone's formally stripped of their rank or reduced in rank, even if dishonourably discharged, they still retain their rank although they can't exercise it as they're no longer serving.

Apologies. My question was meant to be "tongue in cheek".

[anarchofarmer]

Death penalty? As likely as finding an ethical politician!

 

[Soidog]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

It's a bit nit-picky (which I'm apparently famous for )

Not wishing to nitpick, but I think the word is Infamous

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

Apologies. My question was meant to be "tongue in cheek".

I know .

Still maybe worth knowing,  though.

As a worthless bit of trivia, relatively few commissioned officers lose their rank, even when dishonourably discharged or jailed, while other ranks generally do - the USA is one of the exceptions.

[JohninDublin]

47 minutes ago, anarchofarmer said:

Death penalty? As likely as finding an ethical politician!

Ethics: An English county N. West of Thutthex

[AussieBob]

3 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Just a general question not particularly directed at you.

Yesterday, we read of an execution in Singapore of an "intellectually disabled" man being delayed due to Covid. Whether it was the circumstances or a general opposition to the DP, I got the impression that most of the posters on that thread were opposed to the DP. 

Here we have a man who appears to be a monster, and it would not surprise me if there were other bodies attributable to him. It seems apparent he did not acquire all his wealth working all the overtime he could for the RTP. I'd be interested to know how many of those who were not impressed by the impending execution in Singapore, would also oppose the execution of anyone found guilty in this case?

Opposed to the death penalty in all situations. If the defendant wants to accept that - their choice - but if they dont accept, then life behind bars.  The reason for opposition is the chance of a not guilty person being killed and therefore they cannot be found innocent later.  It is impossible to draw a line - it is either for or against.  

[JohninDublin]

46 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Opposed to the death penalty in all situations. If the defendant wants to accept that - their choice - but if they dont accept, then life behind bars.  The reason for opposition is the chance of a not guilty person being killed and therefore they cannot be found innocent later.  It is impossible to draw a line - it is either for or against.  

Thanks for your input. 

Regarding "drawing a line", I wish that were true for everybody. I don't know how well up you are with the Famous Trials in England, but a couple spring to mind that cuts right across that issue. In 1952, intellectually challenged Derek Bentley (18), was hung for the murder of cop. His accomplice, who was 16 at the time actually did the shooting, but was too young to be hung (16). My own opinion on that case, was that the police, knowing they could not execute the gunman, then put words into Bentley's mouth to make it appear that he had incited his accomplice to do the killing. This was the first time the British Public started to question the DP.

Five years later, Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hung in Britain was executed. Again the public questioned the DP, with many petitioning the gov for mercy. It may have helped her to gain public sympathy that she was young, blonde, pretty and that her victim, in the language of the day an abusive cad. 

About the same time as these cases was that of Timothy Evans who was hung for the murder of his wife. A further charge of murdering his infant daughter was not proceeded with as you can only hang a man once. The star witness at Evans' trial was John Christie. Evans accused Christie of the murder, but the jury believed Christie. Some years later, the bodies of 8 women were found in the house where Mrs Evans was murdered, and as it was obvious that some of these women had been murdered before Evans was ever a tenant, suspicion fell on Christie. He too was hung. There then became a campaign to have Evans exonerated, which the gov of the day resisted until 1966. 

But the concern over these three cases was such, that in 1965 Parliament voted for a moratorium on the DP. That vote co-incided with the Moors Murders and almost immediately, the country was calling for the DP to be reinstated, horrified at the thought that the "two monsters" were not going to be executed. 

So you have a few cases where they courts get it wrong and not many people have an appetite for the DP, and then you get a high-profile case like, this and people are queuing up to volunteer to be executioners. 

There are issues on which I think we should rightly delegate powers to the elected officials rather than be sworn by the mob, and this is probably  one that deserves it most.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, AussieBob said:

Opposed to the death penalty in all situations. If the defendant wants to accept that - their choice - but if they dont accept, then life behind bars.  The reason for opposition is the chance of a not guilty person being killed and therefore they cannot be found innocent later.  It is impossible to draw a line - it is either for or against.  

I agree @AussieBob . Over the years there have been plenty of examples where it is 100% nailed on fact who the killer was. Terrorist attacks for example such as that nutter Anders Breivik in Norway. However, like you say, it’s often just too risky that an innocent person could be executed for a crime they didn’t commit. I’d also say that keeping them alive and imprisoned is a better punishment for some of these individuals. The only time I would approve of the death penalty is if anyone killed one of my loved ones. Then I’d administer the punishment myself

[JohninDublin]

41 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I agree @AussieBob . Over the years there have been plenty of examples where it is 100% nailed on fact who the killer was. Terrorist attacks for example such as that nutter Anders Breivik in Norway. However, like you say, it’s often just too risky that an innocent person could be executed for a crime they didn’t commit. I’d also say that keeping them alive and imprisoned is a better punishment for some of these individuals. The only time I would approve of the death penalty is if anyone killed one of my loved ones. Then I’d administer the punishment myself

It's a strange thing understanding some people's personal response to the DP when they have had a close one murdered. Now that "Life without Parole" is becoming more prevalent, there are cases in the US where people might wait 15 years + to witness the execution, and suddenly, they realise that the killer is no longer suffering. Now they are having regrets. "If only he were still alive, he would still be suffering".

Or maybe, it's not so strange after all? Maybe for some, the perpetrator can never suffer enough. 

[Soidog]

49 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

It's a strange thing understanding some people's personal response to the DP when they have had a close one murdered. Now that "Life without Parole" is becoming more prevalent, there are cases in the US where people might wait 15 years + to witness the execution, and suddenly, they realise that the killer is no longer suffering. Now they are having regrets. "If only he were still alive, he would still be suffering".

Or maybe, it's not so strange after all? Maybe for some, the perpetrator can never suffer enough. 

I think that’s a major part of the problem. There are the demands and emotions of close family who perhaps want “and eye for an eye” and then there is the rest of society who are perhaps more understanding, especially in cases such as an abused woman who can take no more and kills her abuser. Or even a teenager who committed a murder and yet has their whole life ahead. It does seem strange to me, that a society that condemns murder would then commit murder. I really don’t think there is a right or wrong opinion on this. Each person and each case is somewhat different. I personally would prefer to see life in jail without parole. I don’t think someone who takes the life of another should be allowed to serve time and then be able to enjoy a life they denied their victim. 
 

Overall I think society is totally confused in its attitudes about violent crime and violent behaviour in general. We are far too lenient with people who commit violent crime and exhibit violent tendencies, and then shocked when they take an additional step and commit murder. This policeman must be a violent individual to be able to torture a person by suffocation. He’s probably done it many times previously and people would have known. It wasn’t reported as they knew the charge would be minor and they themselves would then have a problem. 
 

Here is a current example of the issues with capital punishment. That said, this is in the US where it seems conviction for murder seems far easier. I may be wrong about that, but my impressions is there are far too many cases such as this. Maybe it an historic issue that has now been corrected?

http://news.sky.com/story/man-who-served-24-years-behind-bars-for-murder-in-north-carolina-pardoned-12467754

Edited November 13, 2021 by Soidog
Additional link

[JohninDublin]

16 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I think that’s a major part of the problem. There are the demands and emotions of close family who perhaps want “and eye for an eye” and then there is the rest of society who are perhaps more understanding, especially in cases such as an abused woman who can take no more and kills her abuser. Or even a teenager who committed a murder and yet has their whole life ahead. It does seem strange to me, that a society that condemns murder would then commit murder. I really don’t think there is a right or wrong opinion on this. Each person and each case is somewhat different. I personally would prefer to see life in jail without parole. I don’t think someone who takes the life of another should be allowed to serve time and then be able to enjoy a life they denied their victim. 
 

Overall I think society is totally confused in its attitudes about violent crime and violent behaviour in general. We are far too lenient with people who commit violent crime and exhibit violent tendencies, and then shocked when they take an additional step and commit murder. This policeman must be a violent individual to be able to torture a person by suffocation. He’s probably done it many times previously and people would have known. It wasn’t reported as they knew the charge would be minor and they themselves would then have a problem. 

I see where you are coming from, and without wishing to condemn the survivors, I think many want more than an eye for an eye: "My child was worth so much more than that worthless POS, who killed him", being the starting point. "How can my child's life be traded against such a low-life"? 

They want the killer dead, but they also want them to suffer. Hence the paradox that when the execution occurs, some people realise that they have now lost the satisfaction of knowing that the killer is still suffering.

[JohninDublin]

48 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I think that’s a major part of the problem. There are the demands and emotions of close family who perhaps want “and eye for an eye” and then there is the rest of society who are perhaps more understanding, especially in cases such as an abused woman who can take no more and kills her abuser. Or even a teenager who committed a murder and yet has their whole life ahead. It does seem strange to me, that a society that condemns murder would then commit murder. I really don’t think there is a right or wrong opinion on this. Each person and each case is somewhat different. I personally would prefer to see life in jail without parole. I don’t think someone who takes the life of another should be allowed to serve time and then be able to enjoy a life they denied their victim. 
 

Overall I think society is totally confused in its attitudes about violent crime and violent behaviour in general. We are far too lenient with people who commit violent crime and exhibit violent tendencies, and then shocked when they take an additional step and commit murder. This policeman must be a violent individual to be able to torture a person by suffocation. He’s probably done it many times previously and people would have known. It wasn’t reported as they knew the charge would be minor and they themselves would then have a problem. 
 

Here is a current example of the issues with capital punishment. That said, this is in the US where it seems conviction for murder seems far easier. I may be wrong about that, but my impressions is there are far too many cases such as this. Maybe it an historic issue that has now been corrected?

http://news.sky.com/story/man-who-served-24-years-behind-bars-for-murder-in-north-carolina-pardoned-12467754

Regarding your addendum, I see a multitude of flaws in the US system, especially where the threat of the DP is used to coerce a "confession". Confessions are regarded by prosecutors and juries alike as the best form on evidence. I am sure you are aware of "The Innocence Project". In the first 500 exonerations they obtained, a quarter of convictions had been obtained on the basis of false confessions.

[Soidog]

3 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Regarding your addendum, I see a multitude of flaws in the US system, especially where the threat of the DP is used to coerce a "confession". Confessions are regarded by prosecutors and juries alike as the best form on evidence. I am sure you are aware of "The Innocence Project". In the first 500 exonerations they obtained, a quarter of convictions had been obtained on the basis of false confessions.

Yes I’ve seen several documentaries  relating to the innocence project. I really don’t know how some of the people keep on going year after year fighting for people as they do. Certainly some amazing people. 
 

Slightly aside, but have you seen the movie The life of David Gale. Fantastic movie 

[JohninDublin]

11 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes I’ve seen several documentaries  relating to the innocence project. I really don’t know how some of the people keep on going year after year fighting for people as they do. Certainly some amazing people. 
 

Slightly aside, but have you seen the movie The life of David Gale. Fantastic movie 

Yes. I did see it, and was thinking about it only a few minutes ago.

Regarding the sustainability of the stamina of lawyers in the Innocence Project, I think most of it os due to the fact that they are mainly volunteer lawyers working part time, and law students. There are few if any full time employees. Someone might spend a couple of years working part time on a case, and if it's still unresolved, the notes and work is inherited by their successor.

There's been some criticism of them in recent years, in that they are reluctant to take cases which do not involve DNA, as the other cases are more difficult to solve. In say a rape case, the DNA either does or doesn't match your client.

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, Soidog said:

I’m no legal expert but I assume murder has to show it was premeditated. There is no doubt the actions caused his death, but was that their intention from the start? I would think a number of other charges will stick, but not murder? 

Exactly my initial assumption, too, @Soidog, and I thought it could be a clever ploy to find him not guilty.

Looking up Section 289 (5), though, which is what he's being charged under, that's very much not the case as under Thai law the death doesn't have to be pre-meditated or even intended:

 

"Murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a person usually committed with intent and malice. Malice is associated with the word mens rea which means “criminal mind”.

... (snip) ...

Further, the Thai Criminal Code imposes the maximum penalty of death, when the killing was done under the following circumstances:

...(snip) ...

4.If the killing was premeditated;

5.If the offender employs torture or any acts of cruelty ..."

Intent / premeditated isn't required if "torture or any acts of cruelty ..." are involved.

 

 

[Thaired]

So what has the honest, moral and righteous police done with all his "assets?"

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Exactly my initial assumption, too, @Soidog, and I thought it could be a clever ploy to find him not guilty.

Looking up Section 289 (5), though, which is what he's being charged under, that's very much not the case as under Thai law the death doesn't have to be pre-meditated or even intended:

"Murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a person usually committed with intent and malice. Malice is associated with the word mens rea which means “criminal mind”.

... (snip) ...

Further, the Thai Criminal Code imposes the maximum penalty of death, when the killing was done under the following circumstances:

...(snip) ...

4.If the killing was premeditated;

5.If the offender employs torture or any acts of cruelty ..."

Intent / premeditated isn't required if "torture or any acts of cruelty ..." are involved.

That’s very interesting and certainly it sounds like they can have him on murder based on item 5 above if nothing else

[AussieBob]

9 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Thanks for your input. 

Regarding "drawing a line", I wish that were true for everybody. I don't know how well up you are with the Famous Trials in England, but a couple spring to mind that cuts right across that issue. In 1952, intellectually challenged Derek Bentley (18), was hung for the murder of cop. His accomplice, who was 16 at the time actually did the shooting, but was too young to be hung (16). My own opinion on that case, was that the police, knowing they could not execute the gunman, then put words into Bentley's mouth to make it appear that he had incited his accomplice to do the killing. This was the first time the British Public started to question the DP.

Five years later, Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hung in Britain was executed. Again the public questioned the DP, with many petitioning the gov for mercy. It may have helped her to gain public sympathy that she was young, blonde, pretty and that her victim, in the language of the day an abusive cad. 

About the same time as these cases was that of Timothy Evans who was hung for the murder of his wife. A further charge of murdering his infant daughter was not proceeded with as you can only hang a man once. The star witness at Evans' trial was John Christie. Evans accused Christie of the murder, but the jury believed Christie. Some years later, the bodies of 8 women were found in the house where Mrs Evans was murdered, and as it was obvious that some of these women had been murdered before Evans was ever a tenant, suspicion fell on Christie. He too was hung. There then became a campaign to have Evans exonerated, which the gov of the day resisted until 1966. 

But the concern over these three cases was such, that in 1965 Parliament voted for a moratorium on the DP. That vote co-incided with the Moors Murders and almost immediately, the country was calling for the DP to be reinstated, horrified at the thought that the "two monsters" were not going to be executed. 

So you have a few cases where they courts get it wrong and not many people have an appetite for the DP, and then you get a high-profile case like, this and people are queuing up to volunteer to be executioners. 

There are issues on which I think we should rightly delegate powers to the elected officials rather than be sworn by the mob, and this is probably  one that deserves it most.

I am aware of those cases - but not the details. In Aust we had a similar public debate and it was abolished in the 70s.  At first I disagreed, but then in USA there was a story about a guy who had been executed and was found innocent - and apparently there was quite a few of those worldwide.  No - never DP - only 1 error means an innocent person is dead - it is not worth it.  I agree some deserve it - but history has proven that innocent people get executed - so IMO the DP should never be used. 

[billywillyjones]

As Shakespeare said "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" let's see how the dog and pony show plays out.  If Red Bull baby is any indication don't expect much.