Chon Buri murder case revives debate over death penalty in Thailand

A high-profile murder case in Chon Buri has reignited public debate over whether Thailand should resume using the death penalty for the most serious crimes.

The case, involving two Russian siblings and further allegations against the suspect, has drawn strong public reaction and renewed calls for the harshest punishment in extreme criminal cases. Spring News reported that the case has again put Thailand’s capital punishment laws under public scrutiny.

Thailand still retains the death penalty under its criminal law and several specific statutes. It applies to serious offences such as aggravated murder, major drug offences, terrorism and certain crimes against national security. In practice, however, Thai courts often impose life imprisonment instead, while executions have not been carried out since June 18, 2018.

Thailand therefore remains in a middle position: the death penalty still exists in law, but the country has effectively observed a long pause in its use. Legal analysts say this reflects a mix of international pressure, judicial caution, human rights concerns and changing policy direction.

The Chon Buri case has brought the issue back into public discussion. But any decision on whether Thailand should resume executions would need to balance public anger over serious crime with legal safeguards, human rights obligations and the risk of irreversible judicial error.

Thailand’s current position also places it close to the category known as “de facto abolitionist” — a term used for countries that still retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out executions in practice for a long period. Under Amnesty International’s general criteria, a country normally needs to have had no executions for at least 10 years and show a credible policy or practice suggesting it will not resume executions.

Thailand has not yet reached that threshold. Its last execution took place on June 18, 2018, meaning that as of August 1, 2026, the country had gone about eight years and one month without carrying out the death penalty. If no further executions take place, Thailand would reach the 10-year mark on June 18, 2028, but the status would still depend on whether there is a clear and credible policy not to resume executions.

The distinction is important because being de facto abolitionist does not automatically give a country legal privileges, trade benefits or diplomatic advantages. However, it can improve a country’s human rights image by placing it among states that have effectively moved away from executions, even if capital punishment remains on the books.

By the end of 2025, 113 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes, while 145 countries had abolished it either in law or in practice, accounting for more than two-thirds of the world’s countries. Thailand therefore remains in a transitional position: it still legally retains capital punishment, but its long pause in executions has moved it closer to the group of countries that no longer use the penalty in practice.

However, the status is not permanent. Countries can return to carrying out executions if governments change policy, and some states previously considered de facto abolitionist have resumed executions in the past. This is why Thailand’s current debate is significant: public calls to resume the death penalty in serious cases could affect whether the country continues moving towards practical abolition or reverses course.

The debate comes as global executions have risen sharply. Amnesty International recorded at least 2,707 executions in 17 countries in 2025, up 78% from 2024 and the highest figure it has recorded since 1981, excluding China. China is believed to remain the world’s leading executioner, but its figures are treated as a state secret.

Among countries with available figures, Amnesty recorded at least 2,159 executions in Iran, at least 356 in Saudi Arabia, at least 51 in Yemen and 47 in the United States. Singapore also continued to carry out executions, including in drug-related cases.

Supporters of capital punishment argue that it should remain available for especially serious crimes, particularly cases involving deliberate killing, terrorism or large-scale drug offences. They see it as a form of justice for victims and a deterrent against extreme violence.

Opponents, however, argue that there is no clear evidence the death penalty reduces crime. They also warn that wrongful convictions cannot be reversed once an execution has taken place, making the punishment incompatible with modern human rights standards.

Sources: SpringNews, Amnesty