Prev Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 Next » Please log in to reply 167 replies to this topic

[Buchholz]

rixalex, on 2012-01-11 14:04:08, said:

phiphidon, on 2012-01-11 13:51:22, said:

rixalex, on 2012-01-11 13:11:29, said:

geriatrickid, on 2012-01-11 12:59:16, said:

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

That statement was made by Buchholz. Why refer to him as John? If that is his real name, you are breaking forum rules about revealing personal information of other members. If that isn't his real name, you are accusing him of being somebody he isn't.

Sigh,Nolstagia isn't what it used to be

But trolling clearly is.

+ 1

.

[Buchholz]

David48, on 2012-01-11 14:06:41, said:

Ok guys … I’ve read your arguments on the pros and cons of the bail system here in Thailand and whether or not there are similar systems around the world.

What disturbs me is not the mechanics of the bail/bond system, but the principle of the request.

Now, the ‘Rights and Liberties Protection Department’, which is assumed an independent government department entrusted with the Rights, Liberties and Protection of ALL Thais is planning to exhaust not only it’s present allocation and budget balance in the “Justice” fund but also request additional funds to favour a particular group (jailed red shirt protestors) … have I got this understanding correct?

Irrelevant of your political persuasion you would have to concede that this action would be to the determinant of all Thais who are currently incarcerated and awaiting trial and their hope for an early release, pre-trial through the Justice Fund, has now been extinguished for the foreseeable future (the fund will have no budget monies after this request).

In the spirit of reconciliation would that action (the specific targeting of a political group for special treatment) be support by all Thais?

Is it right?

Is it fair?

Is it a double standard?

No

No

No

Yes
.

[daboyz1]

@Tlansford:
In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?



Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation.  Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state.  Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas.  One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose?  A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction?  I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different.  A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount.  Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage.  If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%.  This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear.  If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE.  That's how they make a living.  If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k.  That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

[David48]

daboyz1, on 2012-01-11 15:43:14, said:

Clear now?

Thanks daboyz1 for clearing that up and I am sure that is how the system works in the US.

... but this is Thailand and I believe this is a serious matter, so, in the spirit of the article posted could we talk about the situation here and the principles involved?

[whybother]

David48, on 2012-01-11 16:04:18, said:

Thanks daboyz1 for clearing that up and I am sure that is how the system works in the US.

... but this is Thailand and I believe this is a serious matter, so, in the spirit of the article posted could we talk about the situation here and the principles involved?

There are no principles involved.

[lannarebirth]

David48, on 2012-01-11 16:04:18, said:

daboyz1, on 2012-01-11 15:43:14, said:

Clear now?

Thanks daboyz1 for clearing that up and I am sure that is how the system works in the US.

... but this is Thailand and I believe this is a serious matter, so, in the spirit of the article posted could we talk about the situation here and the principles involved?

I think I can help here.  The principle involved is "might makes right".

[tlansford]

daboyz1, on 2012-01-11 15:43:14, said:

@Tlansford:
In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?



Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation.  Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state.  Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas.  One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose?  A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction?  I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different.  A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount.  Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage.  If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%.  This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear.  If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE.  That's how they make a living.  If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k.  That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

I believe I said, " Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail." which is what you are also saying, with the exception that you omit the fact that some states also provide a "payment" plan where the defendant is released on bail - for which he has not paid a cent - but for which he agrees to repay a percentage, usually 10%. The mechanism is still implemented via a bail bond company.

Regarding bondsmen, they are not always on the hook for the full amount, apparently. There was a series on NPR 1 year ago that pointed out that "bondsmen benefit from laws or practices that do not require them to pay the government a substantial fraction of the actual bail forfeited when defendants fail to show, creating a lack of incentive for bondsmen to compel their customers to appear in court."

[tlansford]

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 14:33:00, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 14:01:18, said:

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 13:44:10, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 13:30:18, said:

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail.

Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors. * A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. * .

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ??? As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing. The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government. In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else... despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue. .

This is like debating with a bag of rocks that has a keyboard interface.

It is possible in the USA to get out on bail without physically paying a cent. It is possible because the State allows for a deferred payment via bond company, etc.

In Thailand, there is a government fund. Whether the implementation is done by shifting money from one account to another or shifting the payment date from one date to another is irrelevant to the accused who is released on bail but not able to pay.

The fact that other posters are not combing the bail posting laws of the other 195 countries in the world in order to satisfy your demand for proof that no other country does the same thing as Thailand is a tribute to the intelligence of the other posters.

[whybother]

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

[Buchholz]

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 18:05:40, said:

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 14:33:00, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 14:01:18, said:

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 13:44:10, said:

  Please cite any instance whereby the government of the USA provides the money for bail to those criminals that are indicted by the government prosecutors. * A link would seem to be obligatory, but I'll ask specifically for such. * .

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ??? As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing. The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government. In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else... despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue. .

< flame snipped >

It is possible in the USA to get out on bail without physically paying a cent. It is possible because the State allows for a deferred payment via bond company, etc.

In Thailand, there is a government fund. Whether the implementation is done by shifting money from one account to another or shifting the payment date from one date to another is irrelevant to the accused who is released on bail but not able to pay.

The fact that other posters are not combing the bail posting laws of the other 195 countries in the world in order to satisfy your demand for proof that no other country does the same thing as Thailand is a tribute to the intelligence of the other posters.

more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP.

geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP.

Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted.

That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

[lannarebirth]

whybother, on 2012-01-11 18:07:00, said:

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

Why would they do a runner?  This farce seems to have already been scripted from beginning to end.  The end of this particular chapter anyway.  What with the expectation of exemption from lawful outcomes one can't help but expect more lawlessness when this "Wild Bunch" rides into town next.

[tlansford]

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 18:27:08, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 18:05:40, said:

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 14:33:00, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 14:01:18, said:

- sniper -

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ??? As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing. The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government. In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else... despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue. .

< flame snipped >

It is possible in the USA to get out on bail without physically paying a cent. It is possible because the State allows for a deferred payment via bond company, etc.

In Thailand, there is a government fund. Whether the implementation is done by shifting money from one account to another or shifting the payment date from one date to another is irrelevant to the accused who is released on bail but not able to pay.

The fact that other posters are not combing the bail posting laws of the other 195 countries in the world in order to satisfy your demand for proof that no other country does the same thing as Thailand is a tribute to the intelligence of the other posters.

more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP.

geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP.

Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted.

That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand?

As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

I match your and raise you a

[maidu]

This wouldn't have anything to do with a certain notorious billionaire who loves and finances the Reds, and all their law-breaking shenanigans, ...would it?

[maidu]

whybother, on 2012-01-11 18:07:00, said:

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

no way.  The government is essentially the Reds - like one big family.  Would a mom sic the cops on a son who didn't mow the lawn?  The PT party doesn't consider that any of the Reds broke the law, any more than they consider anything that Thaksin did was illegal. They're all patting each other on the back, and trying to give themselves as many good breaks as possible.

[KKvampire]

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

[tlansford]

rixalex, on 2012-01-11 13:55:09, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 13:35:23, said:

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

I don't think anyone has a problem with people being given support to provide them legal representation, but support to provide them bail is quite another thing. The whole idea of bail is to allow people freedom but with some sort of assurance of their return to court. I don't see how, if people are given the money, there is any assurance whatsoever.

And where does it all stop? If you are saying that it is unfair for a poor man to be kept in jail because he can't afford 100,000 baht bail, surely it is equally as unfair to keep a well off man, who can't afford 10 million baht bail, behind bars. Basically anyone who can't afford bail should, following your argument, be provided with the money for bail. Forgive me for saying this, but seems a complete nonsense to me.

Deal with the problem of court cases taking so long, sure. Don't start letting people free with no incentive, should they be guilty, for them to return.

I agree about you regarding the risk of returning - although the use of tracking technologies, check-ins, and other measures to increase the probability of return are normal elsewhere. I don't know about Thailand, but it seems reasonable that the Thais would use different measures, too.  But hey, TVF Fugitive-in-Chief is sitting in Dubai so even if someone can post their own bail, that is not a guarantee that they stick around ...

From the description of the NPR report I mentioned elsewhere, there are a number of issues around supporting bail costs for accused, one of which is described here :

Quote

The series also documented cases where the inability to make bail pressured detainees to plead guilty, and had a negative impact on their economic circumstances, compared with those detainees who could afford bail.[19]

That is a report from the US, but it is not too hard to imagine that the problem is universal.

Which provides a good reason, related to actual justice, to support legal costs, including bail, for the poor.

As for where to draw the line, the information on the Justice Fund shows that there is a process for applying, review, acceptance/denial - I have no idea how well or poorly that functions, but the system is there. The same is true in the US - criteria for financial assistance are defined.

[Crushdepth]

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 12:44:07, said:

Crushdepth, on 2012-01-11 08:37:55, said:

whybother, on 2012-01-11 07:41:39, said:

I thought they idea of bail was as an incentive for those charged to turn up at court at the right time.

What incentive do these people have to turn up if other peoples money is being used for bail?

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.
They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

Ah WTF, just lock 'em up and throw away the key - that's what we farang do in our countries...  right?

from discover Thailand article : this fund is for everyone, lest some gov't haters claim it is only for red shirts.

Quote

The fund was set up in August 2006 to help people with financial problems fight their cases in court. Aid provided includes payment of court fees, a free lawyer to represent them in their case, a surety for temporary release and expenses for forensic science work that may be needed to help them in their case.
...
''The money is not a grant,'' ...  those who won their cases had to be responsible for ensuring whoever they defeated in the court battle reimbursed the fund.

And the article says that the fund is also for foreigners.
http://www.discovert...ad.php?tid=2466

At least in the USA, if not in your countries, people have the right to legal defense as well as a speedy trial.

The USA? A speedy trial? You mean like those that Guantanamo Bay inmates still wait to receive, ten years down the track? And are you not aware that recent legislative changes in the US allow people to be held *indefinitely* without charge or trial, if they are suspected of "terrorism" (hmm...I wonder how that will be interpreted without judicial oversight).

Of course I think this totally sucks, but to answer your question, yes, if you can't post your bail in a farang country, lock them up we do and there they stay until trial. The court only asks for bail if they think the accused is a serious flight risk or threat to the community.

The idea of the court requiring bail and the government paying it is crazy. If it is unjust to impose bail, then why not get rid of it and introduce fines for people that don't show up to court? Of course, such a system would only work if the authorities would actually make some effort to catch fugitives. Mentioning no names...

[Buchholz]

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 19:33:27, said:

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 18:27:08, said:

< flame snipped >

more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP.

geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP.

Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted.

That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand?

As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

My question was answered by your sidestepping.
No where else does the government charge and bail.
Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails.

.

[Buchholz]

KKvampire, on 2012-01-11 19:51:20, said:

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

You have to admit it's funny to read tlansford's lamely attempting to defend it.

.

[AleG]

whybother, on 2012-01-11 18:07:00, said:

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

In that case they better start getting the paperwork for their Cambodian work permits.

[tlansford]

Crushdepth, on 2012-01-11 20:00:17, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 12:44:07, said:

Crushdepth, on 2012-01-11 08:37:55, said:

- sniper -

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.
They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

Ah WTF, just lock 'em up and throw away the key - that's what we farang do in our countries...  right?

from discover Thailand article : this fund is for everyone, lest some gov't haters claim it is only for red shirts.

Quote

The fund was set up in August 2006 to help people with financial problems fight their cases in court. Aid provided includes payment of court fees, a free lawyer to represent them in their case, a surety for temporary release and expenses for forensic science work that may be needed to help them in their case.
...
''The money is not a grant,'' ...  those who won their cases had to be responsible for ensuring whoever they defeated in the court battle reimbursed the fund.

And the article says that the fund is also for foreigners.
http://www.discovert...ad.php?tid=2466

At least in the USA, if not in your countries, people have the right to legal defense as well as a speedy trial.

The USA? A speedy trial? You mean like those that Guantanamo Bay inmates still wait to receive, ten years down the track? And are you not aware that recent legislative changes in the US allow people to be held *indefinitely* without charge or trial, if they are suspected of "terrorism" (hmm...I wonder how that will be interpreted without judicial oversight).

Of course I think this totally sucks, but to answer your question, yes, if you can't post your bail in a farang country, lock them up we do and there they stay until trial. The court only asks for bail if they think the accused is a serious flight risk or threat to the community.

The idea of the court requiring bail and the government paying it is crazy. If it is unjust to impose bail, then why not get rid of it and introduce fines for people that don't show up to court? Of course, such a system would only work if the authorities would actually make some effort to catch fugitives. Mentioning no names...

agree with you about Guantanamo and the recent NDAA. Both are shameful. Last I checked, there was at least one bill in progress to overturn the part of the NDAA allowing indefinite detention.

Many countries provide for a constitutional right to reasonable bail allowing for exceptions to deny bail such as risk of flight and sometimes danger to the community.

The reasons supporting financial assistance for bail to defendants who cannot afford it are mentioned in another post to Rixalex

[tlansford]

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 20:16:45, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 19:33:27, said:

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 18:27:08, said:

< flame snipped > more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP. geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP. Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted. That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand? As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

My question was answered by your sidestepping. No where else does the government charge and bail. Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails. .

Buchholtz - in no way does my lack of effort to do your research for you make your statement correct, furthermore, attaining the same result through slightly different mechanisms still attains the same result. So you'll excuse me if I don't accept your presumption regarding my "admission". Your argument is complete and total "buchholtz", shall we say...

[tlansford]

Buchholz, on 2012-01-11 20:18:02, said:

KKvampire, on 2012-01-11 19:51:20, said:

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

You have to admit it's funny to read tlansford's lamely attempting to defend it. .

There you go again ...

[MAJIC]

rixalex, on 2012-01-11 13:55:09, said:

tlansford, on 2012-01-11 13:35:23, said:

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

I don't think anyone has a problem with people being given support to provide them legal representation, but support to provide them bail is quite another thing. The whole idea of bail is to allow people freedom but with some sort of assurance of their return to court. I don't see how, if people are given the money, there is any assurance whatsoever.

And where does it all stop? If you are saying that it is unfair for a poor man to be kept in jail because he can't afford 100,000 baht bail, surely it is equally as unfair to keep a well off man, who can't afford 10 million baht bail, behind bars. Basically anyone who can't afford bail should, following your argument, be provided with the money for bail. Forgive me for saying this, but seems a complete nonsense to me.

Deal with the problem of court cases taking so long, sure. Don't start letting people free with no incentive, should they be guilty, for them to return.

Agreed!
It is complete nonsense to give people free bail,it makes the whole thing a ridiculous International laughing stock.
The Courts may as well,let them all out with no Bail,which is virtually,what has been done,a kind of Bail on credit,never to be paid.
Any of the accused can jump Bail with no loss to them,and no gain to the Courts,or reason to return,if the case is going against them,just disappear before the Verdict is announced.

Start thinking too much about these crazy ill conceived decisions and it's the quickest route to the local asylum,

I must go and lay down.

Edited by MAJIC, 2012-01-11 21:28:36.

[ballpoint]

whybother, on 2012-01-11 18:07:00, said:

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

Only if they flee abroad and their passports expire, in which case the Foreign Minister will personally track them down and give them a new one.