Thai death sentence for Briton

[Admiral Valdemar]

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

Ah, a pragmatic man if ever I saw one.

[Joy Division]

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

I'm not making a generalisation. If I left my previous statement at that, then it would be, but I havn't.

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.

I highly doubt it's legal to sell waepons to someone who you know will kill themslves with it moments later. And if a pharmacist, or individual for that matter, know that a person will top OD on sleeping pills, then they have acted immoraly. Infact, i'm sure it against the law to provide things to suicidal people that they will use to kill themselves.

[Joy Division]

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.

The definition of immorality depends on which code of ethics you subscribe to. In this case I’m talking about hedonism - so an immoral action would be that which produced unhappiness. And under hedonism you have a moral duty to prevent unhappiness.

WHY IS THE DEALER REQUIRED TO CARE MORE ABOUT THE CLIENT'S HEALTH THAN THE CLIENT DOES?

Whatever you decide that answer to that is, it still doesn't justify the sale of dangerous substances to people.

[AniThyng]

slippery slopes involving capital punishment for littering aside - drug dealing is most certainly a premeditated crime where the person involved is certain to know exactly what is in for him if he gets caught. i have no qualms about giving these people precisely that - the penalty may be unnecessarily harsh, but it is one that is made known explicitly beforehand.

hell, i'm sure most of you support capital punishment for high treason - so why not drug dealing, especially hard drugs which have long term impacts on a nations youth?

[Stuart]

I highly doubt it's legal to sell weapons to someone who you know will kill themslves with it moments later. And if a pharmacist, or individual for that matter, know that a person will top OD on sleeping pills, then they have acted immoraly. In fact, i'm sure it against the law to provide things to suicidal people that they will use to kill themselves.

It is indeed illegal; there is a presumptive duty on the part of a person selling potentially lethal products to ensure that the person using them is not an imminent use risk. There have been, for example, a number of successful lawsuits against bartenders who have sold drinks to people (to the point where they are paralytic) and then watched them try to drive. Its precedent that the bartender has a presumptive duty, having sold a person enough alcohol to make them incapable, to ensure that they do not drive vehicles. There have also been a string of lawsuits (some successful, some not) against gunstore owners for selling guns to people who were either suicidal or homicidal.

In an extreme case, a person who provides another with the means to commit a murder can be charged with "Murder In The Second Degree" with the specification of "depraved indifference to human life" . The exact wording depends on the state. What it means, for example, is if you see a married couple having a vicious argument and you put a knife into the wife's hand so that she kills her husband, you can be charged with Murder Two. There have been Murder Two charges against people who have supplied lethal chemicals - for example there is a case extant where a dealer supplied somebody with rohypnol (the date-rape drug) knowing the recipient was going to use it on a woman. The woman died asa result of the abuse she suffered - the dealer is being charged with Murder-Two.

So there is good precedent for holding dealers guilty for the harm caused by their products. As to Thailand, I'll say again, the laws on drug use there are pretty popular; and its their country. They're probably better placed to make a judgement on the effects of legalizing drugs since there was a time when drugs there were legal - and the death sentance is their response to the problems that caused. One other thing - the drugs trade is closely linked with terrorist movements in the area and with cross-border military actions (declaring an interest - a close friend of mine is a very senior officer in the Royal Thai Army)

[General Zod]

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

I'm not making a generalisation. If I left my previous statement at that, then it would be, but I havn't.

are you purposefully being dense or are you just not realizing that's what i was saying the entire time?

I highly doubt it's legal to sell waepons to someone who you know will kill themslves with it moments later. And if a pharmacist, or individual for that matter, know that a person will top OD on sleeping pills, then they have acted immoraly. Infact, i'm sure it against the law to provide things to suicidal people that they will use to kill themselves.

you obviously wouldn't mind pointing out a law citing its illegality then. your opinion as to what's legal doesn't exactly count as a fact.

[Slartibartfast]

slippery slopes involving capital punishment for littering aside - drug dealing is most certainly a premeditated crime where the person involved is certain to know exactly what is in for him if he gets caught. i have no qualms about giving these people precisely that - the penalty may be unnecessarily harsh, but it is one that is made known explicitly beforehand.

hell, i'm sure most of you support capital punishment for high treason - so why not drug dealing, especially hard drugs which have long term impacts on a nations youth?

I think part of the problem with giving death penalty for anything but murder, is that it gives the perpetrator an excuse to try to escape taking as many lives as he needs. Honestly, if there was a death penalty for any crime, I know I wouldn't "surrender" to the authorities even if surrounded by 300 cops with guns aiming at my head after they caught me stealing that car radio.

[Stuart]

you obviously wouldn't mind pointing out a law citing its illegality then. your opinion as to what's legal doesn't exactly count as a fact.

I think this is a case that would have to be answered on a state-by-state basis since every state phrases its murder/manslaughter/liability laws differently. There is also a problem of the difference between criminal and civil liability. If a drug dealer sold somebody who was driving a car (say) cocaine and that person then crashed the car while DUI and killed somebody there is a clear, precedent supported civil liability (victims have taken large sums from drug dealers that way in the USA). That may or may not extend to criminal liability, we'd need a lawyer to tell us exactly what the laws of the state in question actually specified.

[General Zod]

If a drug dealer sold somebody who was driving a car (say) cocaine and that person then crashed the car while DUI and killed somebody there is a clear, precedent supported civil liability (victims have taken large sums from drug dealers that way in the USA). That may or may not extend to criminal liability, we'd need a lawyer to tell us exactly what the laws of the state in question actually specified.

so if someone gets drunk at a bar and wrecks his car as a result of drinking too much, he can sue the bartender for selling him the liquor then? somehow i don't see that happening.

[Slartibartfast]

According to that, if I like to buy booze and get wasted at home, I shouldn't be allowed to drive me car to the liquor store? Possibly have to walk several miles to the store because I just might be an irresponsible idiot and drink it all while driving? That's stupid.

[Stuart]

so if someone gets drunk at a bar and wrecks his car as a result of drinking too much, he can sue the bartender for selling him the liquor then? somehow i don't see that happening.

Don't laugh, it has already - and the plaintiff won. This is a quite from a site that gives legal advice.

if you are in a situation where you need legal
representation, please seek the help of a professional lawyer.

With that said, I can tell you that any personal representative may
sue on behalf of an estate of a deceased so long as there is a willing
attorney. Whether or not that case is viable is up to the attorney
and the courts. Can they sue you because you because you served
alcohol to someone who, in turn, drove drunk and hurt themselves, died
or hurt/killed someone else? Yes.

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisianna, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, New Hampsire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Washinton, Wisconsin & Wyoming all hold social hosts
responsible for harm caused by their guests.

By early 2004, at least 43 states had laws on the books or case law
(law that comes about through a court ruling rather than an act of the
legislature) that hold commercial servers of alcohol liable for the
harm caused by their intoxicated patrons...Thirty-one states hold
social hosts responsible for harm caused by their guests.

SOURCE: Insurance Information Institute
( http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/drunk/ )

The term "social host" means anyone who hosts a social gathering

So if you throw a party and let one of your guests drive home drunk, you are liable for any harm he causes.

This link goes into the issue in depth.

In Florida, a gun store owner sold a .25 automatic to an adult. The adult's son then stole the pistol, took it to school and whacked his teacher. The teacher's next-of-kin sued the gun store owner and won (however, it was overturned on appeal).

[Stuart]

According to that, if I like to buy booze and get wasted at home, I shouldn't be allowed to drive me car to the liquor store? Possibly have to walk several miles to the store because I just might be an irresponsible idiot and drink it all while driving? That's stupid.

If you're blasted and over the legal limit, of course. The key point is though that the store owner may be liable also because he sold you more booze knowing you were already blotto.

[General Zod]

So if you throw a party and let one of your guests drive home drunk, you are liable for any harm he causes.

completely separate situation. one involves the person buying something legally and then later using it to get drunk, and causing harm as a result. the other involves the individual supplying the drink knowing he's leaving causing harm. not exactly comparable.

In Florida, a gun store owner sold a .25 automatic to an adult. The adult's son then stole the pistol, took it to school and whacked his teacher. The teacher's next-of-kin sued the gun store owner and won (however, it was overturned on appeal).

exactly the type of scenario i was describing. since it was overturned by court law, concession accepted. the store owner cannot be held responsible for what someone does with a product after they purchase it and take it home.

[Darth Wong]

What people don't understand about liability for negligence is that it's not about "responsibility" and it's not about guilt; it's about duty. Specifically, it is about your duty to protect the public.

All engineers understand this; it is part and parcel of being a professional engineer. And it is also part of being any business. People who are completely fixated on their selfish obsession with their own rights are often incapable of recognizing that we also have certain responsibilities in society, and that's where the concept of negligence comes from.

Negligence does not mean that you necessarily caused something, or that the victim was blameless. It means that you were negligent in upholding your duty of care to safeguard the public. And everyone has this duty, although it is elevated in some cases compared to others, depending on your position, your training, etc.

Once you understand that every business and professional has an active duty to help protect the public (as opposed to simply being able to point the finger and say "not my fault"), then you can begin to understand negligence cases. Until then, you are attempting to force a square peg into a round hole, which is why so many people who study negligence cases come away saying "what the fuck?" and spewing inane and ignorant reactionary knee-jerk doctrinaire bullshit about activist judges or the destruction of personal responsibility etc.

[salm]

So what do you propose then?

legalize all drugs, tax them and sell them under controlled circumstances, for example not to kids. use the money wasted on the war on drugs and the gained tax money for educational purposes relevant to drugs.

try to reach a state, like in holland, where drug addicts are seen as ill people, who need treatment, by society and by that make being a drug addict utterly uncool and therefore not an achievable goal, even for the most moronic teenagers.

if some idiot still wants to slowly kill himself by injecting heroine or whatever for a couple of months or years he should feel free to do so. but, like you, i don´t want to pay for him eating up recources in prison, where this type of person is likely to get even more criminal.

[Batman]

It means that you were negligent in upholding your duty of care to safeguard the public.

Okay, I can see where that applies to selling guns to suicidals or letting people who can barely stand drive a car.
But how far does that duty go? If some stinking rich nutjob wraps his Ferrari around a tree at 160 mph, can his family sue Ferrari because they built cars that go that fast?
Not endangering public safety by making sure your product is safe (as far as possible), or by not letting the customer do something obviously dangerous with it, is one thing.
Does this duty prevent me from selling any product at all that has some inherent danger?

[AdmiralKanos]

It means that you were negligent in upholding your duty of care to safeguard the public.

Okay, I can see where that applies to selling guns to suicidals or letting people who can barely stand drive a car.

But how far does that duty go? If some stinking rich nutjob wraps his Ferrari around a tree at 160 mph, can his family sue Ferrari because they built cars that go that fast?

Yes. In fact, there was such a suit once (and it was successful), not because of the car's raw speed alone but because Ferrari failed to put any warnings anywhere in its owner's manual or instruct its salesmen to warn against driving that quickly in a street environment and particularly without high-speed driver training. The rule is that you must take any and all reasonable measures to prevent harm to the public, as determined by industry standards and a certain amount of judgement on the part of the judge and jury. It does not mean you must make harm impossible, because that in itself is impossible.

Not endangering public safety by making sure your product is safe (as far as possible), or by not letting the customer do something obviously dangerous with it, is one thing. Does this duty prevent me from selling any product at all that has some inherent danger?

As I said, it means you must take any and all reasonable measures to prevent harm arising from the use of your products. This is, of course, a judgement call to say what is "reasonable", but industry standards are a common benchmark; for example, if you sell a performance car and it can be shown that other manufacturers of performance cars make a point of warning people about the dangers of using this power on the road, then you had better do the same or you might be in for trouble. In any case, the point is simply to remember that negligence is about this "duty of care" and not about figuring out where the blame lies, which is the way most people seem to think it works.

[Batman]

Thanks, Mike. That explains a lot.
Let me see if I can sum it up:
Selling a dangerous product is OK if
a) every reasonable effort is made to avoid or at least minimize the danger, and
b) every reasonable effort is made to make the customer AWARE of the remaining danger.
Or am I misundertanding something?

[spikenigma]

right, I'll just wade in here and post my two cents before I go to tennis...

1. I don't support the death penalty whatever the circumstance, I do not believe anyone has the right to take anothers life

...in the most extreme circumstances, I have my own views on punishment

2. The death penalty is illegal for all british citizens and I quote from the british foreign policy website:

The UK has ratified Protocol 13 of the ECHR, banning the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, including time of war.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pag ... 5715424996

if they are to execute a british citizen (however much of a fuck-face), they are going agianst british law

3. Drug dealing is no where near the same as murder...

* murder's aim is to kill another human being - and take away the most precious thing there is - life
* drug dealing's aim is to make money at the expense of ones stupidity witht he offhand second thought that somewhere down the line - continued taking might/will do them some harm

* this year, 120'000 UK citizens will die from cigarette related/cause illnesses
* this year 5000 - 40000 people will die from alcohol poisoning

from 1997 - 2002 (four years) heroin, morphine & methadone combined - have clocked up 6,194 deaths

exstacy is taken by approx 1 million clubbers (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1869/a08.html?397) every weekend in the UK - there have been only 200 deaths from 1987 to the present day day...yet it is a class A drug

so by the reasoning that dealing drugs which may kill = murderer, we should execute every last one of those tobacco and alcohol maufacturers who kill ALOT more people than all of the other drugs combined...

...and no I'm not advcating drug taking, I'm just showing the parallels between so-called soft drugs and hard-drugs

4. lastly...drugs are bad ...mmKay?

[Beowulf]

2. The death penalty is illegal for all british citizens and I quote from the british foreign policy website:

The UK has ratified Protocol 13 of the ECHR, banning the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, including time of war.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pag ... 5715424996

if they are to execute a british citizen (however much of a fuck-face), they are going agianst british law

Makes not a whit of difference. Thailand is not Britain. A foreigner breaks one country's law, then they have to deal with the reprecussions. Saying that he should be tried by his native country's laws goes against every princple of sovreignty.

[Batman]

The UK has ratified Protocol 13 of the ECHR, banning the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, including time of war.

Porn friendly or not, undressed links are BAD, mkay?

if they are to execute a british citizen (however much of a fuck-face), they are going agianst british law

1. Foreign governments are not bound by British law
2. The 'E' in ECHR stands for 'European', so it doesn't apply to Thailand anyway.

[spikenigma]

very true

however...

1. That would be against the geneva convention and thus international law, and I quote:

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... neva1.html

espoinage - nope
serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power which have caused the death of one or more persons - nope

and Thailand IIRC is part of it..

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_g ... on_sp.html

now, as I'm tired and groggy now, I've probably got this COMPLETELY wrong...but meh!

[White Haven]

...Mostly OT, but this thread put me in mind of the 'stupid TIEs in Lightspeed' thread. TIE Death Sentence. Sorry, couldn't hold that one in, there Back on topic, meh, death sentence loses its shock value if you apply it willy-nilly. It becomes a case of 'well, if I'm going to be killed for what I've done already, I might as well go shoot David in the head, can't get any worse.'

[General Zod]

very true

however...

1. That would be against the geneva convention and thus international law, and I quote:



>snip<

now, as I'm tired and groggy now, I've probably got this COMPLETELY wrong...but meh!

it specifically states protected person however. what constitutes as protected? military personnel? simply being citizens from a foreign country? official dignitaries? what exactly?

[spikenigma]

it specifically states protected person however. what constitutes as protected? military personnel? simply being citizens from a foreign country? official dignitaries? what exactly?

bollocks!, I should have read further...

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

I don't know, I suppose if you consider a government a force occupying the country...but meh!, what do I know?, I'm not a lawyer