Horrific Bangkok Crash

[Guest fountainhall]

Today the Thai media is full of stories and ghastly photos of yesterday's crash on one of the main expressways.

 

Eight people were killed when the passenger van they were travelling in crashed near the Bang Khen exit of the Don Muang tollway after being involved in an accident with a Honda Civic. Police say the car ran into the rear of the van, causing it to hit the tollway barrier. Eight passengers, including the van driver, were thrown from the vehicle and on to the road below.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/213693/teen-under-fire-over-crash

 

Apart from sadness at the senseless loss of eight lives, much attention has focussed on the alleged driver of the Honda Civic. The Bangkok Post claims it was a young lady named Orachorn "Prae-wa" Thephasadin Na Ayudhya. The Nation decided not to print the name. In Thai society, the suffix Na Ayudhya is usually granted by the Royal Household, implying that one of the lady's parents held some important office. This has resulted in a great deal of chat room gossip about a cover-up already having started. Why? Because the alleged driver was only 16 years old and had no drivers' licence, both serious offences in Thailand. A roadside surveillance camera indicates that she might have been driving too close to the minivan - another serious offence.

 

Such is the law here that she’s too young to be prosecuted for driving without a licence. She’s also legally too young to be held responsible for the deaths. In fact, according to one web source, there’s a pretty good chance she’ll get away scot free.

 

What has particularly outraged many Thais is that a photograph taken of the driver immediately after the accident shows her using her Blackberry. Many people reckon she is chatting with friends. Instead, her step-brother claims she was calling her father. Judge for yourself. If you ask me, she'd most likely have been on the phone to her father seconds after impact. And wouldn't a Blackberry have a one-touch number for her father? If so, why is she using two hands?

 

Whatever she was doing, rogue and drunk drivers are sadly not uncommon on Thai streets at New Year. Be careful, folks, as you enjoy the celebrations.

[Bob]

Because the alleged driver was only 16 years old and had no drivers' licence, both serious offences in Thailand. A roadside surveillance camera indicates that she might have been driving too close to the minivan - another serious offence.

 

No doubt the outcome of this accident was horific but there's no reason to suspect that what happened here was anything other than exactly that: an accident. And I'm a bit mystified why you consider driving too close or driving without a license as "serious" offenses. I believe those are both misdemeanors. Somewhat lower on the totem pole than robbery, assault, or even drunk driving.

 

And the Al Capone in this story is a 16-year-old girl. Geesh.

[Guest Patexpat]

 

And the Al Capone in this story is a 16-year-old girl. Geesh.

 

who is under age, has no licence and apparently has been directly involved in the deaths of 8 people. Geesh.

[Bob]

Guess we ought to stone her, huh?

[Guest paulg]

What should they to in the same circumstances to say a 20yo male.

[Bob]

What should they to in the same circumstances to say a 20yo male.

 

Difficult to answer because we're not really sure what happened here (other than the horrific end result). But, presuming there is any criminal culpability, one would think that a 20-year-old would likely receive harsher punishment than a minor.

 

In the US, a 16-year-old would typically be handled by the juvenile courts whereas a 20-year-old would be processed by the "adult" or regular courts. The ultimate determination of whatever punishment and/or fine would be merited would likely rest on how a judge or jury viewed the nature of the behavior of the driver (was it ordinary negligence, gross negligence, reckless behavior, or intentional conduct?). Being stupid and/or an air-head - if that's all that happened in the case - probably wouldn't result in much assignment of criminal fault (but, for another example, even a 16-year-old driving 100 MPH through a residential section and/or driving drunk or on drugs would certainly increase both the charges made and punishment given).

[Guest fountainhall]

there's no reason to suspect that what happened here was anything other than exactly that: an accident.

I can't believe you actually wrote that, Bob.

 

Here's a scenario. By law, you are under age; yet you drive on a public road. You have no driving licence and no right to be driving a car; yet you drive on a public road. There is evidence that you may not be in control of your vehicle. There is video evidence that you are weaving from lane to lane. You drive too close to another vehicle, which is against the law. Phone records and police investigation will presumably indicate whether or not you are using your mobile phone as a hand held device whilst driving, which is against the law.

 

A combination of some or all of the above conspire to make you crash into the back of a van carrying a dozen or so human beings. Due to your action and the force of the impact, you cause that vehicle to run out of control and crash with the loss of now nine lives.

 

Yet, if this scenario is correct, you assess it does not amount to a “serious” offence? I trust your post was made with tongue firmly in cheek! The girl will probably escape serious punishment, not because she is legally a minor, but because of her family’s influence. At least that is what the Thai chat sites are saying.

 

Back to reality. The Nation today prints a police statement –

 

Police have summonsed the girl to report to them at noon on January 5. She will be charged with reckless driving causing deaths and injuries, and driving without a licence. 
If convicted of the first offence, she will face a jail term of up to 10 years and/or a maximum fine of Bt50,000.

In typical Thai sentencing guidelines, somehow “up to 10 years” equates with a maximum fine of Bt. 50,000. Ridiculous!

 

In the meantime, 9 families grieve 9 utterly senseless deaths. Assuming she did what she is reported to have done, if this selfish brat was a bit older, she would get the long jail sentence she deserves. I see very little difference between causing 9 deaths directly as a result of breaking several laws, and taking out a gun and pulling the trigger 9 times at point bank range. And I hope the parents, who are responsible for her and clearly failed in their responsibility to ensure their underage daughter did not drive a vehicle in direct violation of the law of the land, also get slapped with criminal charges.

[KhorTose]

I see very little difference between causing 9 deaths directly as a result of breaking several laws, and taking out a gun and pulling the trigger 9 times at point bank range.

 

There is actually a big difference. When it comes to murder, and some other crime "Intent" is a big factor.

 

"First Degree Murder is the deliberate, planned act of Murder. One must have thought about it, (even for a short time) planned the murder and executed it. FDM are often proven not only because of planning of the murder itself, but also other factors like having a place to hide or get rid of the body, having an escape planned, ETC.

 

A First Degree Felony murder is a murder that takes place while committing a felony, even if the murder is accidental. This happens most often in things like Arson, Kidnapping, Rape, ETC.

 

Second Degree Murder appears to be any other type of murder (Other then Capital Murder) Generally speaking, an example of this would be a murder that happened very quickly without fore-thought. (IE; a verbal fight that escalates to a fist fight that escalates to murder) It�s very similar to Manslaughter, and some States do not differentiate between SDM and Manslaughter.

 

Manslaughter is broken in to two parts.

 

Voluntary Manslaughter is when a murder is committed in the �Heat of the moment.� That is, there is no fore-thought and usually no attempt to hide after the fact. The intent to kill was present at the time of the killing, but in no way planned.

 

Involuntary Manslaughter is when a murder is committed with no fore-thought and again, usually no attempt to hide after the fact, and the intent to murder was not present. Such as getting in to a bar fight and punching someone in the nose, there by sending bone fragments in to their brain and killing them, ETC. It is also most often used as a charge in cases of Negligence. (Careless Driving, ETC)

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/6232

 

I have a feeling that a good prosecutor would ask for 2nd degree Murder , but would be very lucky to get manslaughter and more then likely the jury would go for involuntary manslaughter because of her age.

[Guest fountainhall]

There is actually a big difference. When it comes to murder, and some other crime "Intent" is a big factor.

I think my wording may have been too loose. In comparing the 'crime' to point blank murder, I had been continuing from the previous sentence which included, "if this selfish brat was a bit older . . . "

 

Sadly, being a minor, the girl will no doubt get off lightly. But if her parents were aware that she was driving without a licence and/or it was one of their cars, whatever the law says, I hope there is some way of locking them in jail.

[Bob]

I think my wording may have been too loose.

 

Too loose? I'd vote for almost hysterical.

 

I don't disagree with you about the parents. If they allowed her to use the car, they ought to have some substantial culpability (however, conjuring up a murder verdict against them might be a bit draconian, let alone non-provable). They would be held accountable criminally at some level in the west (unless the kid took the car without permission).

 

I disagree with the comments about even manslaughter applying here as I see no evidence of intent to injure or kill. In the west, we often have a charge of "negligent homicide" which relates to death caused by conduct which is negligent but less than intentional. That charge (or other special laws relating to vehicular deaths) is often used when a death is caused by the negligent/reckless operation of a vehicle but it needs to involve some significant aggravating factors (just because somebody died in a traffic accident due to your driving negligently isn't enough). I could possibly see that charge....should the provable facts merit it.

 

In the wild west, the law (Sheriff whoever) and the crowds often acted in the heat of passion based on what happened to the victims. That's mob rule in my view. Justice, it seems to me, requires a calm and dispassionate (after the blood returns to normal temperature) review of the conduct and intent of the accused.

[TotallyOz]

From CNET:

Technology Thailand

 

2011: Year of Thailand's online social awakening

Jan 1, 2011 09:41

 

2010 was a pretty good year with regards to tech innovation and product releases in Thailand. We saw the release of multiple tablets from Apple's iPad to local brands like Wellcom's A800 and Samsung's Galaxy Tab.

 

We were disappointed yet again with the postponement of our 3G auction but were somewhat comforted with MNP and the expansion of current 3G "test area" coverage.

 

Society and politics, depending on how long you've been around and how much you can recall about the past 3 decades, seemed to regress or remain stuck in its depressing loop.

 

However, there was one very interesting development in Thai online behavior, which seemed to go against the grain of what usually happens in the real world. Thais have become more aware of the power of social networks like Twitter, FourSquare and Facebook.

 

From political discourse to online vigilantism (not necessarily a bad thing considering our history of questionable justice) to support for their favorite public figure, the masses have been drawing attention to events and issues which normally would be overlooked or muffled by traditional media.

 

As the year came to an end, we saw a horrific accident appear in the news. A minor from an influential family (whose name will not be reported here as she is a minor) was illegally driving a car on one of Bangkok's elevated tollways. She had lost control of her car during a overtaking maneuver which caused it to slam into a passenger van causing a high speed accident flinging at least 8 people out of the van to the tragic end on to the streets way down below.

 

Normally, this would be considered a tragic accident which was caused by an unfortunate series of event involving a privileged minor, which is not uncommon. But sadly for the minor, her actions right after the accidents were captured and publicized for better or for worse.

 

Despite the questionable legality of publicizing a case involving and personal details involving of minor, pictures of the minor tapping away seemingly nonchalantly on her Blackberry and subsequent screen captures of her Facebook wall interactions which appeared to show someone with callous indifference for the loss of life and indifference.

 

A Facebook page dedicated to holding her accountable, as soon as it was revealed that the minor would be fined only 400 baht for careless driving, soon popped up and chain emails with the incident's grisly pictures were soon making rounds in people's inboxes. Never mind that the case could still be pending and that it was an accident due to carelessness and not premeditated act of murder. Never mind that it was caused by a minor.

 

It could have been disdain for her immediate actions at the scene of the accident, online or perception of her attitude towards the whole situation. It could also be that the public has had enough with rule bending by privileged members of society. Maybe this latest incident was an ugly reminder of a previous auto-related incident perpetrated by another privileged soul which saw people mowed down on sidewalks due to road rage. A new precedent is being sent with regards to social responsibility and its been set by the new generation who have taken it to the online world.

 

It had been said that today's youths were interested in only their online world and did not care what happened in the real world. We are now seeing that those words uttered by a generation oblivious to what really happens online proven wrong and that youths are holding them responsible for their inactions in the real world.

 

Its a new world out there and those who choose to ignore or remain behind are going to be surprised in the worst possible way.

 

http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/technology-thailand/post.htm?id=63022309&scid=rvhm_ms

[Guest fountainhall]

This seems another story where the people indirectly involved cannot get their facts straight. Re the photo of the seemingly unconcerned girl texting by the side of the crashed car she had been driving, the day after the accident her step-brother told the media that she was not texting at all. She was in fact phoning her father to tell him about the accident.

 

Fast forward 24 hours. Now her mother tells everyone that she was in fact texting! She was informing her friend, from whom she had 'borrowed' the car, that she had been in an accident and wanted to know about the car's insurance policy.

 

SInce then, the girl has now admitted she was speeding.

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/01/01/national/Girl-17-admits-to-speeding-before-deadly-crash-wit-30145558.html

[Guest fountainhall]

The wheels of justice have now turned and a verdict been delivered. Let us, though, remind ourselves of the seeming facts in this ghastly case.

 

A 16-year old young lady (well, girl really!) is too young to drive. She has no drivers’ license. Yet she is driving a friend’s car on a public expressway. Investigators discover that she is talking on her mobile phone. That’s three offenses!

 

She crashes the car into the back of a University minivan, causing it to go out of control and crash against the side barrier. The force of the impact is such that the driver is killed. Eight other occupants are thrown out of the vehicle, several over the barrier and down on to the road below. All are killed.

 

There is public outrage when photographs appear in the media of this girl texting at the side of the road immediately after the accident. There is further outrage when it is discovered that she comes from a well-to-do ‘hi-so’ family, the concern being that her family’s money and influence will get her absolved of punishment.

 

And the punishment for the willful recklessness of this teenager and her negligent family?

 

The Central Juvenile and Family Court yesterday convicted the speeding driver of reckless driving that caused the deaths of others and property damages. It commuted her jail term from three to two years, and suspended it for three years on the grounds that her statement was useful.

 

As part of the punishment, she was also ordered to report to probation officials every three months and do 48 hours of community service within two years. She will also face a driving ban until she turns 25.

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Teen-found-guilty-of-reckless-driving-in-fatal-tol-30189557.html

 

Sadly, this ridiculous sentence was expected. After all, this is Thailand where money and influence count for a great deal – especially, it seems, in courts. A jail sentence of two years suspended “because her statement was helpful.” That makes me sick! As does the fact that this teen murderer has never apologized for her actions.

 

The victims’ families are mounting civil suits claiming Bt. 120 million. The fact there was a guilty verdict may have a positive impact on that trial when it gets before the courts. I, for one, hope they get every Baht, and a lot more.

[Bob]

Tragic crash and outcome; on the other hand, I see no purpose at all in putting the stupid little girl in the slammer due to the accident. Absent her ever driving again, I'm doubtful she poses any danger whatsoever to anybody.

 

I have no knowledge about whether she and/or her family have ever offerred any apologies to the victims. I'm wondering how you know that they didn't (was that reported somewhere?).

 

It's difficult for me to believe that an adult (parent here?) wasn't fully aware that the kid was driving the van and didn't have a driver's license or any driver education. If either or both of her parents or some other responsible adult aided or abetted this event, he/she/they ought to be the ones given a few years in the slammer.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have no knowledge about whether she and/or her family have ever offerred any apologies to the victims.

 

Before the court made the ruling, Pol Col Saran Nilawan, the father of Thammasat University first-year student Chutiporn Nilawan who died in the crash, said the defendant had never apologised for what happened

http://www.bangkokpo...s-2-yrs-in-jail

 

I wholly agree the parents should be in jail. I cannot find the reference, but I seem to recall it was reported at the time that they were not only aware their daughter drove, she sometimes drove one of their own cars. That, though, I can not prove.

[Bob]

In the states, most if not all of the states have what we call "owner's liability statutes" which, absent a pure theft situation, provide that the registered owner of the vehicle is civilly liable for whatever the driver does with the vehicle. If there are two registered owners (normally, both parents), they're both liable. If the victims' families are lucky in this case, maybe Thailand has a simlar law.

[billyhouston]

The sentence was disgraceful, but are you surprised?

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,185060,00.html

 

Chalerm is now Deputy Prime Minister and employed Duangchalerm in his ministerial office as far as I recall. TIT

[TotallyOz]

The verdict does surprise me. I wonder how much of this has to do with faded memory? Does Thailand's media forget about the story after a while? Was it constantly in the press even after the incident? The reason I ask, is that if it was, it seems the judges would have no choice but to lay down a tougher punishment.

[Bob]

Remember, this was handled in juvenile court. Even in the states, the max a juvenile court could have done was to hold the kid in some kind of detention (not an adult prison) until the kid was 21.

[Guest fountainhall]

Was it constantly in the press even after the incident? The reason I ask, is that if it was, it seems the judges would have no choice but to lay down a tougher punishment.

 

It was all over all the media for many days.

 

As to Khun Bob's point, despite it being a Juvenile Court, it clearly had the right to sentence a guilty 16-year old to three years in prison. In their wisdom, the judges reduced that to two - and then suspended it! What I find equally shocking is that the 'outraged' media seem to have forgotten their outrage. It's almost as though it accepts "this is Thailand so let's just get on with covering the latest shocking revelation." There is rarely any follow-up here.

 

The TIME article posted by billyhouston may have been published 11 years ago, but its essence remains true today. There is a class of people whose wealth and influence place them above the law in Thailand. And it all starts with corruption - but that's another story!

[Rogie]

Her's the original headline in the Bangkok Post: That was dated 30th Dec 2010:

 

Eight people were killed when the passenger van they were travelling in crashed near the Bang Khen exit of the Don Muang tollway after being involved in an accident with a Honda Civic. Police say the car ran into the rear of the van, causing it to hit the tollway barrier. Eight passengers, including the van driver, were thrown from the vehicle and on to the road below.

 

As FH reminded us:

 

The wheels of justice have now turned and a verdict been delivered . . .

 

 

Am I the only one to be incredulous it has taken a year and 8 months to decide what sentence to hand down.

 

Then we have the cryptic comment: “because her statement was helpful.” I'm sure many people would be very interested to know exactly what it was that influenced the judge.

 

Amongst those who've been following the case will be the families of the eight victims "thrown from the vehicle and onto the road below".

 

Justice is often less than perfect. How often have we seen in western countries distraught relatives aghast at the leniency shown. Then again when the sentence is a harsh one it is the relatives of that person who regale against the system. Getting everything just right, the correct sentence appropriate to the crime and age of the person such as satisfies the courts as well as the criminal's family and the family of the victim(s).