So, the two Thai fishermen responsible for the rape and murder of Katherine Horton on New Year’s Day 2006 have been sentenced to death.

 

It has been customary in those jurisdictions were the death penalty remains, for the ultimate sentence to be reduced to one of a life sentence were the crime is admitted and a guilty plea entered at Court.  In fact, the principle of a routine reduction of sentence upon admissions being made and/or guilty plea being entered is common to many jurisdictions for many crimes, both serious and minor.  A spokeswoman for Amnesty International, Sarah Green was reported to be “disturbed” that the death sentence had been passed upon the two men, Bualoi Posit and Wichai Somkhaoyai.

 

It is very disturbing.  Leaving aside the indecent haste with which the whole trial process proceeded, it is very likely that the defendants were persuaded to enter guilty pleas for the sole purpose of avoiding the death sentence in the event their “not guilty plea” failed at trial.  The intervention of the Prime Minister of Thailand, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra could not have been helpful[1].

 

No one can be criticised for drawing the conclusion that the death sentence was imposed for the sole purpose of protecting the tourist industry and had nothing to do with the perceived seriousness of the crimes committed.  This is a case of Justice clearly not being seen to be done.[2] 

 

 

 



[1] The Prime Minister made a public appeal for the defendants to receive the death penalty (professed as “the hardest punishment”) pointing to the damage that had been caused to the country’s image and its tourist industry.

[2] A full report of this case can be found at Guardian Unlimited.