It's a subject of controversy I think. Might stir up a lot of arguement.

One point I'd like to make a comment. A big time drug dealer (IMO) is considered far much worse than a serial killer. A serial killer might commit a dozen of homicide more or less. But a drugdealer cause more than a dozen of death, hundreds or thousands of sufferings, economic losses, creating related crimes, threaten to social security.

Big time drugdealers deserve whatever serial killers get. IMO, a drugdealer is as bad as a corrupt politician.

I have to agree with JFL. I would also like to point out that it has been established in studies in US that a lot of convicted 'criminals' who have been executed were actually wrongly convicted. Given that the US justice system is, in most states, at least marginally better than than that of Thailand, and that it is very obvious that many people who are found guilty of all kinds of crimes here are in fact found later to be innocent, it would seem to be wise that the death penalty be abolished.

There's a long history of wrongful executions in Thailand, both judicial and otherwise. The executions in the matter of the murder of H.M.Rama VIII are an outstanding example. This has been widely written about, & it has been acknowledged at the highest level. There are many, many others. The corruption of the police & the judicial system is intolerable, and I wonder how those who participate at any stage in these murders come to terms with them in the light of their Buddhist beliefs. They all share the guilt. No amount of magical ceremonies, or assurances from corrupt monks can change that.

I strongly agree with Dr J that big-time drug dealers are responsible for many deaths and a great deal of related crime, as well as incredible misery. They should be separated from society. But I wonder how many of the really big players are 'untouchable,' living comfortably, holding high office, appearing to be pillars of the community, while their underlings take the rap. The Thaksin government's 'drug war' didn't get any of those monsters; it concentrated on local villains, small-time operators, & in the event of a proper enquiry (as if!), it will be shown that many of those who were murdered were innocent of any connexion with drug dealing.

Execution by lethal injection is said by its advocates to be 'humane.' How can the deliberate termination of a healthy life in any circumstances be termed humane?

Hobby, In a perfect world there are no drug dealer nor executioners, I guess.

Wrong choice of word again! - need to start studying poetry:)

I understand Plaadip's thinking behind promoting the death penalty for certain crime, but overall I agree with JFL - its really revenge or 'fun'.
(and once Michael's point of wrongful conviction is taken into account, I see no point, but real danger, in capital punishment)

read Veera's "highly critical" (joking, of course) response to the execution news.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/152717/death-penalty-likely-to-stay-on-for-years-to-come

Pragmatically, in the process of the 'much controversial' capital punishment discussed here, some loopholes do exist. Normally, every convict of capital punishment can appeal for a royal pardon. If the appeal is rejected, then the process will go on as were the cases in the article. Practically, there's no time frame in the process of response to an appeal. As long as there's no answer for the appeal, the case will be pending for, sometimes decades. This is the reason why there're hundreds of cases pending in the process, and very few did actually get the death sentence. Typically Thai way of handling things.

Skimming through Thai sites on the same thread, most of the comments still support the capital punishment. No wonder, why there were scarce criticisms concerning Thaksin's 'war on drugs' among Thais. Countless Thais still favor 'an eye for an eye' , I wonder whether it's relevant to the Buddhist way of thinking .

I agree with michael (and many other comments here). It's the critical lack of critical thinking that mislead people for so long. While they laid their trust in Thaksin, they didn't bother to be critical for all his actions. But once decide to turn their backs on this man, everything he did seem all went wrong. There are either heroes or tyrants, nothing in between.

Back to the thread, I think a life-long sentence seems justified for drugdealers. Just make sure they won't get pardon nor parole, unless proved innocent.

Nothing could make me believe that it is right for a head of government to send police out to kill members of the public. The fact that it's apparent that many of those who were murdered in the 'drug war' were not involved in the drug trade - quite obviously the children weren't, for starters - and many were very small players, makes it so much worse.

Presumably one could say that the fact that many police and politicians & their associates are involved in criminal activities, and this is well-known, means that anyone foolish enough to engage in the drug trade would be aware of the considerable risks involved, & therefore 'deserve' whatever comes. But that doesn't make it acceptable. Especially when it comes from a man who was elected on a platform that can now be seen as the cynical & opportunistic manipulation of an electorate crying out for justice and fair play after years of abuse.

So, Plaadip, it is a mystery to me why there has been so little reaction. Let's not pretend that it was in any way acceptable. Your 'the "tough measure" of Thaksin agaisnt drug traffickers,' etc., is a horrible, sick euphemism. [Not to mention the typos! :) ]

Michael, I used the world "tough" measure because the red taxi drivers usually use Thai word, "kemguat" to describe Thaksin's drug war. What's wrong with that?(Being too emotional makes you look silly. Be careful. :) Sadly, it's not acceptable measure but quite an effective measure to get quick acclaim from the poeple. They were happy becuase they saw the small time drug dealers disappered from their neibhorhood.

You should understand that Thaksin was able to implement his policy effectively because he had unprecedentedly big power for a civilian leader and used it dictatorially. Thai people like his style so his dictatorial use of power increased his populality, which incresed his power. (There was a positive growth cycle for him in those days.) In short he could be "a good administlater" because he was "a dictatorial villain". You can't seperate those two elements in him, because the latter was the cause of the former.

Plaadip, when I said 'your' I didn't mean to imply that you are the initiator of the expression. I know you were repeating what taxi-drivers say - with irony. I meant 'in your post.'

I agree with what you say about how Thaksin was able to do what he did. I was here, I saw it. But I do think it's sad.

Are you saying that Thai people like dictators?