Crime

Thailand is adopting stricter firearm controls amid a rise in gun-related crimes. The Cabinet is set to draft a firearms act which deems all privately owned firearms and ammunition must be registered with a government agency.

According to The Star, the draft act was approved on Tuesday. Government spokesperson Rachada Dhnadirek confirmed the news adding that the current measures in place are not effective enough.

Rachada says the current laws don’t allow police to inspect suspects who may be in possession of a firearm.

“Inspection can only be conducted if there is clear evidence that the suspect possesses firearms and plans to use them for the crime.”

The new draft would serve as an amendment to the 1947 Firearms Act, which requires all weapons and ammunition to be registered. She says the amended act would also aim to prevent the import of firearms, including military-grade weapons.

The current act stipulates:

• Those who possess firearms and ammunition must register them within 180 days, or they will face legal prosecution

• Those who possess military-grade weapons or ammunition must hand them over at the nearest military unit within 180 days. The military will not give compensation for the weapons or ammunition and these surrendered items will immediately become state property.

• All details gathered on privately owned weapons will be made available in the investigation of crimes.

Just yesterday, a Royal Thai Police officer started firing gunshots randomly at Soi Jiramakorn in the Sai Mai district of Bangkok.

Police identified the gunman as 51 year old Pol. Lt. Kitikarn Sangboon, an inspector with the Special Branch of the RTP.

• Follow us on :

Over 100 SWAT officers took down the police officer, who reportedly died after being shot by police in the left arm, left thigh, and left side of his chest.

According to Khaosod News, the police officer jumped from a window, succumbing to his injuries and gunshot wounds.

SIR Keir Starmer today refused to apologise for campaigning to keep evil foreign thugs in Britain.

Straight after delivering a speech on crime, the Labour Leader wouldn’t say sorry for signing a letter calling for 50 dangerous offenders not to be deported on a flight to Jamaica .

Instead, a remorseless Sir Keir boasted: “I stand proudly by my record.”

He added: “If there’s a problem with the criminal justice system then ask yourself, who broke it? If there’s a problem with our asylum and deportation system, then ask yourself, who broke it?

“You can’t blame the opposition for the government’s failures.”

In 2020, the Labour boss demanded “all future (deportation) charter flights must be suspended” — and even suggested the convicts be handed taxpayer-funded mobile phones to help them with their attempts to stay in Britain.

But an exclusive Sun investigation revealed seven of the thugs went on to commit more violent or drug-related crimes following the intervention.

Tory MP and former minister Brendan Clarke Smith slammed Sir Keir as “disgusting” for trying to talk tough on crime when he was happy to campaign for foreign criminals.

He raged: “Sir Keir Starmer has a lot of gall talking about cracking down on crime today when he’s been perfectly happy to campaign on behalf of violent thugs.

“It’s disgusting that Sir Keir thinks he can have any authority on keeping Britain safe when he wanted to keep dangerous offenders here at home.”

Meanwhile, Tory MP Mark Jenkinson questioned: “What planet is Sir Keir living on?”

Among those who reoffended on the back of the Labour Leader’s intervention was heroin dealer Akiva Heaven, who had already served four years behind bars and was released in 2018.

He was jailed again in May 2021 for dealing cocaine and heroin in Southsea, Hants.

Starmer also helped stop Barrington Laing from being removed — despite a decade of crime beginning when he was in an Asbo gang aged just 14.

Responding to shocking revelation, Home Office Minister Robert Jenrick said: “The Sun reveals the appalling crimes committed by dangerous foreign criminals who weak and naive Labour politicians campaigned to keep in our country.”

And Minister Chris Philp added: “This is the true face of Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour Party.

“They’re soft on crime and would rather campaign to stop the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals than try to protect the British public. It’s a disgrace.”

This morning in Stoke-on-Trent Sir Keir made four pledges to crack down on crime.

He vowed to restore confidence in police to its highest ever level and halve incidents of knife crime.

And he promised to halve levels of violence against women and girls, and reverse the collapse in the proportion of crime solved.

“Whatever the crime: anti-social behaviour, hate crime, serious violence, it’s always working people who pay the heaviest price,” Sir Keir said.

“Working class communities have to live under its shadow.

“That’s why tackling crime – law and order – will always be so important for my Labour Party.”

Risking the wrath of his own MPs, Sir Keir hailed Margaret Thatcher as voice of reason on crime.

“Margaret Thatcher called it the first duty of government – she was right,” he said.

“An expression of individual liberty – our rights and responsibilities, but also of justice, of fairness, of equality – one rule for all.”

Human rights advocates are asking Missouri prosecutors to investigate the grisly death of transgender teen Ally Steinfeld after the Sheriff investigating the murder dismissed the notion that it could be a hate crime.

Steinfeld, 17, was burned after she was stabbed in the genitals and her eyes were gouged out, police said.

The Human Rights Campaign asked the state’s attorney general to oversee the investigation into Steinfeld’s slaying, imploring that prosecutors reclassify the killing as a hate crime. The organization said it was “deeply troubled” after Texas County Sheriff James Sigman said there was no way the case was motivated by the teen’s sexual orientation.

Three people have been charged with the teen’s murder, and a fourth individual faces a lesser charge in the incident. One of the suspects, Andrew Vrba, tried to force Steinfeld to drink a poisonous liquid, but when she refused to do so he “used a knife instead,” a probable cause report states.

Vrba told authorities that he bragged to friends about the killing, gouging out Steinfeld’s eyes and stabbing her in the genitals, according to the report.

Police say he asked Steinfeld’s girlfriend, Briana Caldera, 24, and two other friends, Isis Schauer, 18, and James Grigsby, 25, for help in the disposing of the body after Vrba stabbed her multiple times.

The group dragged her body outside, went to the store to get accelerant and then burned her body outside, court records show. Police say they put the charred remains in a plastic bag and hid it in a chicken coop.

The report doesn’t mention that Steinfeld was transgender.

After details of Steinfeld’s death were made public, Sigman stood by his statements that the crime was not motivated by the teen’s gender identity.

When reached by Newsweek , Sigman refused to comment. A woman who answered the phone in his office said officers didn’t have any proof the crime was tied to Steinfeld being transgender.

“[The crime] wasn’t done because of him being whatever he was,” said the woman, who didn’t disclose her name and would not refer to Steinfeld as a “she” despite criticism from LGBT advocates. “We have a motive and it wasn’t that. We all know what really happened but we can’t release it because it will hurt the case.”

Questions were immediately raised about Sigman’s comments, especially given the brutal nature of the stabbing. Some called on him to examine the case further.

“All violent crimes are reprehensible. However, the damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury, or even in lives lost,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for Human Rights Campaign. “Hate crimes rend the fabric of our society and fragment communities because they target a whole group and not just the individual victim.”

Warbelow called for a more thorough investigation, explaining hate crimes are intended to “‘send a message’ that an individual and ‘their kind’ will not be tolerated, many times leaving the victim and others in their group feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected.”

Others, including friends of Steinfeld, think the Sheriff’s comments are the result of rural, small-town politics in the southern town.

“It’s just the area we’re from. No one understands or is accepting of someone who is different,” said 18-year-old Torey Reno, a close friend of Steinfeld’s who is also transgender. “They don’t think ‘she’ was a ‘she’ because they don’t get it, but still, I am completely dumbfounded.”

Steinfeld came out as transgender early this year. She was planning to start hormone treatment and had plans of reassignment surgery, but “[the suspects] put an end to her dreams and never let her become who she was meant to be,” said Reno.

“I cried and cried when I heard what happened,” she said. “That’s a terrible and brutal way to die. I wouldn’t wish that on even my worst enemy.”

MANILA, Philippines—A recent Supreme Court (SC) decision strengthened a 2004 law, which seeks to address the prevalence of violence against women and their children (VAWC) by their intimate partners.

Looking back, no less than former presidents Rodrigo Duterte and Joseph Estrada had flaunted their philandering ways. Sometimes, they even appear to be trivializing what they’re doing, making it less complex than it really is.

But as Psych Central said, “infidelity can have lasting impacts on partners and children the couple may have,” stressing that “grief, brain changes, behaviors down the road, and mental health conditions such as anxiety, chronic stress, and depression can result.”

Now, almost 20 years since Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, was enacted into law, the SC held that marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence, which can be penalized by the law.

READ: Marital infidelity is punishable under the law – SC

Last March 21, the SC First Division junked a Petition for Certiorari filed by a husband who appealed his conviction beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262.

Section 5(i) of the law provides that the crime of VAWC is committed by “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman’s child/children.”

Back in 2020, in G.R. No. 247429, the SC also upheld an RTC decision that marital infidelity may constitute psychological violence and can be penalized under that provision of the law.

Court records showed that the husband in the case was charged with committing acts of psychological violence and marital infidelity by having an affair with another woman, and having three children with the latter.

Emotional, psychological pain

In the latest case decided by the SC, it was stressed that all the elements to establish violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, which was signed on March 8, 2004 by then President Gloria Arroyo, were present.

The SC said “the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, and that the offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish.”

Likewise, it was stated that “the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar to such acts or omissions.”

Based on data from the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), from 2019 to 2021, 82 requests for assistance involving marital infidelity were received—3 in 2019, 24 in 2020, and 82 in 2021.

As defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, marital infidelity is the “act or fact of having a romantic or sexual relationship with someone other than one’s husband, wife, or partner.”

READ: DSWD launches temporary anti-VAWC desks for Women’s Month

It was stressed in a research paper written by Kira Sly and published by the California State University that “infidelity was found to be associated with depression, anxiety, PTSD in some cases, decreased self-esteem, attachment issues, and more.”

Latest case

The SC said the husband’s petition in the latest case that it decided was denied as the Jan. 31, 2019 decision and Oct. 18, 2019 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the man’s conviction by a Regional Trial Court (RTC), was affirmed.

Based on court records, the husband and his wife were married on Dec. 29, 2006 and had a daughter, but the wife later went to Singapore in 2008 for work. Then in 2015, she discovered that her husband was in a romantic relationship with another woman.

“Worst, she later discovered that the other woman was pregnant with her husband’s child,” the SC said, explaining that the wife learned that the husband brought the other woman to their hometown, prompting her to return home.

The SC said learning that her husband and his mistress started to cohabit, the wife asked for the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in getting her daughter from her mother-in-law.

The husband was charged with violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262 in 2016. The RTC found the husband “guilty of inflicting psychological violence against his wife and daughter through emotion[al] and psychological abandonment.”

Aggrieved, the husband appealed the RTC decision before the CA and imputed some errors such as “failing to consider that it was his wife who alienated their child from petitioner and for failing to consider that it was him who took custody of the child when she was still seven-months old until October 2015.”

But the CA “found no merit in the petition.”

Then years later, the SC agreed with both the RTC and CA decisions since, saying that clearly established that the husband’s acts had caused his wife and child “mental or emotional anguish through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children.”

How does the law work?

Based on the law, the offended party may file a criminal action, or apply for a Protection Order either as an independent action or as an incident in civil or criminal action and other remedies.

The PCW said any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime may file a complaint because violence against women and their children is considered a “public crime.”

RELATED STORY: Mothers can be offenders under VAWC law to protect their children – SC

Cases may be filed in the RTC designated as Family Court of the place where the crime was committed. “These courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over these cases,” the PCW said.

Lawyer and legal education professor Kathy Panguban told INQUIRER.net that when it comes to evidence to prove the crime of psychological violence through marital infidelity, the most important is the testimony of the victim herself.

“The testimonial evidence of the victim is important because it is a personal experience, so she needs to narrate it. Now, if there are other witnesses with personal knowledge, they also need to be presented for corroborative evidence.”

Panguban, who is also the women and children lawyer of the National Union of People’s Lawyers, stressed that the totality of evidence is being weighed so it would also help if an expert, like a psychologist who was consulted by the victim regarding the violence experienced, can testify.

The PCW said if the male spouse/partner is the one complaining about abuses committed by his wife/partner, he may file a complaint or case under the Revised Penal Code.

READ: Dads can seek protection order vs abusive moms

Law protecting women, children

RA No. 9262 seeks to address the prevalence of VAWC by intimate partners like their husband or ex-husband, live-in partner or former live-in partner, boyfriend/girlfriend or ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend, dating partner or former dating partner.

READ: SC rules women in illicit relationships are also protected by VAWC law

As defined by the law, VAWC, refers to any act or a series of acts committed by an intimate partner against a woman who is his wife, former wife; against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship; against a woman with whom he has a common child; against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate within or without the family abode.

It was stated that these acts result in or are likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering or economic abuse, including threats of such acts: battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Several acts of violence are covered by the law—physical, sexual and psychological violence, and economic abuse—and offenders can be penalized with imprisonment ranging from 1 month and 1 day to 20 years and payment of P100,000 to P300,000 in damages.

Based on the preliminary findings of the 2017 National Demographic and Health Survey, 26 percent of married women aged 15-49 had experienced physical, sexual or emotional violence by their husband or partner.

Also, one in five, or 20 percent of women, has experienced emotional violence, 14 percent has experienced physical violence, and 5 percent has experienced sexual violence by current or most recent husband or partner.

Psychological violence are acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim which includes, but is not limited to causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child.

Controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct and threatening or actually inflicting physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling the woman’s actions or decisions is likewise considered psychological violence.

The PCW said psychological violence also includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.

Physical violence, meanwhile, includes physical harm such as causing/threatening/attempting to cause physical harm to the woman or her child and placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm.

Sexual violence are acts which are sexual in nature committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, and physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim’s body.

Economic abuse includes acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent upon her abuser, which includes, but is not limited to, the preventing the woman from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity.

RELATED STORY: Women party-list wary of including men as victims in VAWC law

TSB