Teacher head batted by bar owner!

[Guest]

What country recently had the dubious distinction of some 2000 extra judicial killings?

 

Yes, it was Thailand.

 

Comparisons with any western democracies are ludicrous.

 

The true murder rate in Thailand must be astounding.

You're absolutely right. If you assume the official homocide number stayed roughly the same and count the 2,000+ extra-judicial killings as homocides, the official rate jumps by a whopping 40-50%. And I am sure there are other casualities we are missing.

 

The comments here about Thailand being safer than the US are absolutely ridiculous.

 

Maybe we should start circulating these numbers and clippings of reports about foreign suicides and other strange deaths and injuries to foreignors in Thailand to travel magazines and let the international travelling public decide for themselves if Thailand is safe by voting with their wallets when they make their travel plans. Just a thought. ::

[Pom Michael]

"The comments here about Thailand being safer than the US are absolutely ridiculous."

 

Hmm... and this comment is not?

 

Perceptions and your own experience. I would rather live in Bangkok then in most cities in the US.

[..]

I was not going to come back to this, but given the silliness of the statments made, here are some FACTS:

 

Crimes per 100K population, per the CIA World Factbook, 2005 edition:

 

Assaults: TH - 32.9, US - 756.9

Burglaries: TH - 21.6, US - 710.0

Car thefts: TH - 5.4, US - 388.0

Drugs offences: TH - 428.9, US - 560.1

Frauds: TH - 11.2, US - 125.7

Murders: TH - 8.4, US - 4.3

Rapes: TH - 6.6, US - 30.1

Robberies: TH - 1.3, US - 138.5

Total crimes: TH - 922.9, US - 8006.6

 

Yup, there is a higher murder rate in Thailand, but in both cases the numbers are small (as compared to places like the winner, Columbia at 62, or even Mexico at 13), so it is really inconsenquential. But on the whole, you are more than 8 times LESS likely to be a victim of crime in LoS than in the US. LoS is safer. QED. I rest my case.

 

Regards,

SD

 

EDIT: Now I know some of you will winge that "Waaah, those numbers can't be right, I just *know* it!" Well, the CIA World Factbook is the benchmark in all types of country data. It is very well researched and highly respected. If you can find *numbers and facts* to support your feelings, from a reliable source, then by all means, post them with an attribution. Otherwise, accept that my posted facts are correct, proving my point.

[Old Hippie]

Yeah, I was going to stay out of this as well, but will chime in one last time ( ) But of the Thai Murder rate, how many of those guys get killed while committing a crime? I know here the murder rate includes people killed while committing criminal acts, and shot by police, citezens defending themselves, and criminals shooting criminals, all of which are different then just a random killing.

[Hugh_Hoy]

suadum said:

 

source, then by all means, post them with an attribution. Otherwise, accept that my posted facts are correct, proving my point.

 

Well, we all know that stats can "lie". Personally, I have little faith in Thai collection/reporting methodology. Too, we have not been privy as to how the stats were compiled. Do Thai's report "crimes" at the same rate as they are reported in other countries? Or does the "mai pen rai" element factor into the equation? I'm sure that the CIA Factbook relies on data given to it or compiled by various governments; I wonder how much auditing of the stats is done.

 

Just as an indication as to how much and why stats can be distorted is noted below (grabbed from a New Zealand website.

 

"Comparisons between different countries

Differences in definitions of violent crime make international comparisons problematic, and account for at least some of the apparent differences in recorded violent crime rates between countries.

 

Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime. However, New Zealand does include these crimes in its definition, and these offences comprise approximately half of all violent crime in this country. Also, New Zealand does not include sexual offences in violent crime, whereas Australia, USA, Canada, England and Wales do.

 

Besides definitional differences, recorded crime figures are likely to be affected by many other factors including:

 

Rates at which crimes are reported to, and recorded by, the police. For example, the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey of seventeen countries (not including New Zealand) indicated that from country to country the percentage of robbery offences reported to the police ranged from approximately 30 to 75 percent; assaults with force ranged from approximately 15 to 70 percent; threats ranged from approximately 20 to 55 percent; and reporting rates for sexual assaults ranged from approximately 28 to 65 percent. In the 1996 New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims, it was estimated that 23.6 percent of robberies, 32.8 percent of non-domestic assaults, and 18.5 percent of non-domestic threats were reported to the Police. Generally, crime appears to be recorded when preliminary investigations provide sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed. Some countries record crime, however, when the offence is reported to the police, while other countries may not record a crime until a suspect is identified and papers are forwarded to the prosecutor;

Differences in the rules when counting multiple offences by individuals. For example, in New Zealand, recorded crime data indicates one count for every offence recorded, regardless of how many were committed by the same individual. In some countries multiple crimes of the same type, occurring within the same incident may be recorded as one crime, depending on the type of crime;

Whether crime rates are counted in terms of the number of offences, or the number of victims. In New Zealand, all offences arising from a single incident or in relation to a single victim are normally counted. In contrast, in some other jurisdictions there are "hierarchy rules" so that only the most serious offence is counted;

Changes in data quality over time; and

The population standards used to calculate crime rates per capita. Some countries employ adult populations in these calculations, while others use total population. When the total population is used, the resulting crime rate per capita is lower than when adult population figures are employed.

It is strongly recommended that these issues be reported along with any comparisons drawn between different countries' violent crime rates."

 

A practical example would be a guy (convicted felon) in the U.S. who pulls a gun on a motorist and takes his car; proceeds to rob a bank, during which he pistol-whips a customer; knocks down 2 people who suffer broken bones while running out of the back; gets in the stolen car, and speeds away while crashing into several cars and running several red lights; runs over a kid on a bicycle, killing him; the car crashes and his accomplice is shot and killed by the police while trying to escape. Now, we have a number of felonies and misdameanors here: felon in possesion of a handgun; robbery (car-jacking); consipiracy to rob the bank; robbery of the bank; felonious battery; speeding; wreckless driving; failure to obey a traffic control device; manslaugher (the kid on the bike); and murder (his accomplice was killed by the police; felony murder rule). So, we have quite a number of charges and crimes committed. Are all of them going to be reported uniformly by all jurisdictions in the U.S.? I seriously doubt it. Are they all going to be reported uniformly between countries? I doubt it. Just being picky :-) But you get the drift.

 

Hugh (mak)

Those who agree with me may not always be right, but I admire their astutenss.

[..]

Pehaps, even probable. But without hard numbers to the contrary, it is all pure conjecture. Therefore my analysis stands.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Zorro]

Yes lies, lies, and damn statistics.

 

Look we all know there are more dangerous places than Thailand.

Baghdad springs to mind....just joking but the facts remain that Thailand whichever way you look at it is extremely dangerous.

 

THe murder rate in Australia is only one in a hundred thousand!

 

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

 

The amount of evidence is overwhelming.

 

Now what about those state sponsored assasinations?

[jxxxl]

suadum said:

Well, the CIA World Factbook is the benchmark in all types of country data. It is very well researched and highly respected.

 

Would that include crime statistics i.e., as a benchmark? You made an assertion that the CIAWFB is the benchmark, care to back that up? Oh, and who actually collects this data? The CIA? Or, do they rely on the numbers published by the government and make some subjective adjustments?

[Old Hippie]

:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: This is getting really redundant and boring...wait, I said that already...in any event, never mind the damned excuses, explanations etc...if you think Thailand is so dangerous, then just stay out, stay home where you think it is safe, or go someplace else...enough of this! I say GOOD DAY! :sleeping:

[ALHOLK]

Hi!

 

I think you are missing the point here. Statistics don't lie, they just don't tell the whole truth. There is no denial that there is an awful lot of violence in Thailand but foreigners are rarely the target of it. I have seen tourists and expats act in a way that would make them hospitalized in my very peaceful country. Here they often get away with their bad behaviour. When a foreigner (western) is subject to violence it often make a big story in newspapers. Whe a Thai gets killed it might be mentioned but will mostly not make the front page.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK