Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Thai government and drug traffickers

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    138

    Post Thai government and drug traffickers

    I watched the a current affairs program "Sunday" on Channel 9 in Australia this morning (7th of November, GMT +10:00) of which their cover story was "Inside the Bangkok Hilton". The article was produced by the BBC on which they were given a tour through one of the jails.

    This article got me thinking about the subject of drug trafficking in Thailand. The government said that drug dealers destroy the lives of many young Thai people and deserve to die. But when you watch the story, you will find out that they are only doing to get a source of income to support their families. Those that the government have on death row are not the bad guys. They are innocent men who have been used by the bad guys.

    I believe that the Thai government is not doing the right thing by killing the traffickers, if they have to kill someone - which I am strongly opposed to the death sentence - they should hunt down and destroy the actual recruiter's and drug makers. The government is killing the "messenger", so to speak, and not actually tackling the problem. As long as there is poverty in the world, then the bad guys can always find those who will be willing to do anything for a little bit of money to put food on the table for their families.

    A Buddhist monk thinks execution is like the king slaying enemies in wars past. Both, he says, are sinful, but done to protect the country and therefore allowed.

    I've only got a few questions, do you think that the Thai government is going about this whole thing the wrong way? What do you think of their punishments against drug traffickers [generally death or something like 99 years in prison]? How would you handle them if you were the leader of Thailand? In reference to the monk's statement, do you think the executions are really protecting the country?

    An overview of the cover story "Inside the Bangkok Hilton" can be accessed here. The site also has a link to the BBC site.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,109
    They are innocent men who have been used by the bad guys.
    are they aware of what they are doing? if they are, they are not innocent.

    What do you think of their punishments against drug traffickers [generally death or something like 99 years in prison]?
    first time, home incarseration (the ancle bracelet)
    second time, and maybe therd depending on the scercanstances give them time with hard labor (perferably one with usable job skills)
    after that death, you are not goiong to change there ways.

    How would you handle them if you were the leader of Thailand?
    as above for the mules, for those running the operations, after they aer convicted in a court of law, death. these people will not get"rehibilated" in jail, they are like wild, and dangros anamals, you put them down for the saftey of scioty.
    I ONLY APPOLIGE FOR MY SPELLING!

    federal code defining the militia, look it up for your self.
    Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, chapter 13, Sec. 311.

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Nouvhere
    Posts
    1,300
    Drug trafficking is a victimless crime, so a death penalty for it is absurd.
    How many socialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Answer: Why should they have to change it? The government should provide this essential service for free! And anyone opposed to this is opposed to changing light bulbs and advocates that poor people should sit in the dark!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,558
    You must be on what these people are trafficking if you think that drug trafficking isn't a victimless crime, because it isn't even CLOSE to a victemless crime. Whaton earth makes you think this???? Not that I agree with emclean (I don't know if I have ever agreed with emclean) but c'mon.
    Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.
    -John Stuart Mill

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    138

    Post To fix the problem, target the cause

    To emclean:

    are they aware of what they are doing? if they are, they are not innocent.
    I don't think all of them were aware of the type of drug that they were carrying. So they may not be "innocent" as such, but they are being used like pawns by the criminal gangs. They are/were desperate for money to support their families, which is, in itself should be mitigating circumstances to lower the punishment.

    first time, home incarseration (the ancle bracelet)
    second time, and maybe therd depending on the scercanstances give them time with hard labor (perferably one with usable job skills)
    after that death, you are not goiong to change there ways.
    If you wish to keep them in their homes, how do they get enough money to put food on the table? Try and keep in mind that these are typically desperate people. The second one is a problem as many of these people have no job skills. They showed one person on the story who had been searching and searching for a job but was unable to get one. Many may not have developed job skills because employers may have been unwilling to employ them. What about rehabilitation? Teach them the neccessary skills in order to gain and hold a job. I am sure that the results would surprise many people.

    Put to death after three times? Three strikes you're out eh? In order to change their ways, you will have to tackle the root cause of their problem - financial hardship. Hence the rehabilitating them with the neccessary skills for employment. After they are taught this and have their life back on track, I don't believe that they will committ again. People need to be given chances to redem themselves. Some traffickers are put to death after one time! There is no justice in this. What happened to the belief that the punishment should be proportional to the crime?

    as above for the mules, for those running the operations, after they aer convicted in a court of law, death. these people will not get"rehibilated" in jail, they are like wild, and dangros anamals, you put them down for the saftey of scioty.
    That is why the government should be taking them out of jail and put them on special programs designed to handle drug traffickers. They are desperate for money, not wild nor dangerous to any member of the community. People of the community should start to take responsibility for their own actions. No one is forcing the Thai people to buy the drugs, they chose to do it themselves. Similarly, the traffickers should also be ready to accept punishment that is proportional to the crime. In my book, drug trafficking is not a really big major kind of crime that deserves the death penalty. Rehabilitation has a high chance for first time offenders and a medium chance for second time offenders to get their lives back on track, while jail time after that should be considered.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,109
    If you wish to keep them in their homes, how do they get enough money to put food on the table?
    sorry i was not clear. the point of home incarasion IMO is so the people can work, in the morning htey can leve a serton amount of time before they start work, and have so much time to get back home.

    The second one is a problem as many of these people have no job skills.
    so, you put them to work in apprentist type jobs, they get the crapwork, but also they get skills.

    Put to death after three times?
    you asked what I would do.
    I ONLY APPOLIGE FOR MY SPELLING!

    federal code defining the militia, look it up for your self.
    Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, chapter 13, Sec. 311.

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Nouvhere
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Master_Shake
    You must be on what these people are trafficking if you think that drug trafficking isn't a victimless crime, because it isn't even CLOSE to a victemless crime. Whaton earth makes you think this???? Not that I agree with emclean (I don't know if I have ever agreed with emclean) but c'mon.
    So who's the victim?
    How many socialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Answer: Why should they have to change it? The government should provide this essential service for free! And anyone opposed to this is opposed to changing light bulbs and advocates that poor people should sit in the dark!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dzeron
    So who's the victim?
    Those who eventually receive the drugs. If you have to have that explained to you than I don't know what business you have talking on this thread.
    Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.
    -John Stuart Mill

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Nouvhere
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Master_Shake
    Those who eventually receive the drugs. If you have to have that explained to you than I don't know what business you have talking on this thread.
    Am I correct in saying this?:

    They are not forced to take the drugs. They take them as a personal choice on the basis of their view on what is best for themselves.

    I may not agree with their opinion on what is best for themselves, but I will defend their right to do it.
    How many socialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Answer: Why should they have to change it? The government should provide this essential service for free! And anyone opposed to this is opposed to changing light bulbs and advocates that poor people should sit in the dark!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •