Punishments don't deter killers

I thank Khun Songdej Praditsmanont for his criticism of my calling the young driver who hit a van on the expressway, killing nine, a “killer”; he believes that using that term is too harsh. Khun Songdej’s criticisms are without a hidden agenda, open, and to the point – and, equally importantly, he is open-minded, willing to give opposing opinions an equal hearing.

Merriam-Webster.com defines “killer” as “one that kills”. Dictionary.com defines it as “a person or thing that kills”. The girl killed nine people, which fits the definition perfectly. I did not call her a “murderer”.

To me, the purpose of a court verdict should be twofold: to punish and to deter. The underage driver (and her parents) certainly knew that she was not legally entitled to drive a vehicle, and driving at speed could easily be lethal – yet she went ahead anyway. Yes, the verdict of guilty, but with a suspended sentence, does make it easier for victims to claim compensation – but then, the burden is only financial, and falls mainly on the child’s parents, whereas if she were jailed, the burden would fall mainly on her – where I suggest it belongs. 

Also, the extent to which civil judgements will punish/deter depends on the wealth of the perpetrator and his/her family. Because if, for example, the girl’s parents were as wealthy as those of the Red Bull heir whose Ferrari killed a cop, the degree of punishment/deterrence would be considerably lessened. That may be the way the world is, but is that just to be accepted without question or pause?

I stand by my use of the term “killer”, and thank Khun Songdej for his thoughtful discussion of issues of the day.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok