Komkrit "Soranat" Wongsasing a former post office worker was last week found guilty of stealing 300,000 Baht (around 6000 Euros). He was jailed for fifty years - his plea of guilty allowed his original term of 100 years to be commuted to only the 50 year term.

Former Thai Prime Minister Taksin (amongst others) has been found guilty of corruption and abuse of power whilst being leader of the country -various charges were proven to show that Mr Taksin essentially filled his own pockets whilst commanding the highest office in the land.  One would have thought that abuse of such nature would incur a much harsher sentence than that of Mt Wongsasing. However Mr Taksin was given a term (in his absence) of just two years. On a scale of severity should Mr Taksins jail term have been closer to 3,000 years? The crime that Mt Taksin committed is so much worse than that of Mr Wongsasing for many reasons - the amounts of money were larger, the stakes were bigger - Mr Taksin brought an entire country into disrepute . Should Mr Taksin have been given a penalty that would deter other crooked politicians from doing the same again?

It is not only Thailand where there appears to be one law for the rich and one for the poor. In the USA there are many notable examples of wealthy businessmen being given lenient sentences. Conrad Black was given 78 months and will probably be released after just three years for being found guilty of diverting millions of dollars (from the company Hollinger International) for personal benefit.

Common petty criminals are given long sentences in the USA - so why are the high profile businessman allowed to almost get away scot free?

What are your views on such differences in the way that people are treated in Thailand and across the world? Use Visit Thailand’s Forum, or comment on News Stories to air your thoughts and opinions.