|
Thailand Procedures in Criminal Law
Responsibility for the administration of criminal law was
shared by the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice.
Appropriate branches of the TNPD were charged with detecting and
investigating crimes, collecting evidence, and bringing the
accused before the court. The Public Prosecution Department of
the Ministry of Interior represented the state in criminal
proceedings and conducted the prosecution. The Ministry of
Justice supervised the operation of the courts.
The first step in a criminal case was a preliminary
investigation carried out by a police officer; the investigation
might include searches of suspects, their homes, and others
thought to be implicated. The required warrants for these
searches stated the reason for the search, the identity of the
person or place to be searched, the name and official position of
the officer making the search, and the nature of the offense
charged. The police generally adhered to this requirement except
in instances covered by the Anti-Communist Activities Act of
1979.
Similar procedures applied for arrest warrants, but a senior
police officer was permitted to make an arrest without a warrant
when the offense was of a serious nature, or when someone was
apprehended in the commission of a crime or in possession of a
weapon or instrument commonly used for criminal purposes. Private
citizens were permitted to arrest without warrant anyone caught
in the act of committing a serious crime. Arrested suspects were
required to be taken promptly to a police station, where the
arrest warrant was read and explained to them. They were then
held or released on bail. The provisions for bail and security
were defined by law.
After an arrest, a further and more detailed investigation of
the case was made, but not until the complainant--the state or a
private individual--had submitted and signed a full bill of
particulars. At the beginning of this phase, accused persons were
warned that any statement they made might be used against them in
court. The investigator was not permitted to use threats,
promises, or coercion to induce the accused to make self-in-
criminating statements.
When the investigation was completed, a report was filed with
the public prosecutor, who then prepared an indictment and gave a
copy to the accused or his counsel, who entered a plea of guilty
or not guilty. Based on the plea and the evidence that had been
gathered, the judge either accepted a case for trial or dismissed
all charges. Trials were normally held in open court, and the
accused was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the
defendant had no counsel and wished to be represented, the court
appointed a defense attorney. During trials, accused persons or
their counsels could cross-examine prosecution witnesses and
reexamine defense witnesses. They could also refuse to answer
questions or to give evidence that might be self-incriminating.
At the conclusion of the argument the court usually recessed
while the judge reached a decision; the court was required,
however, to reconvene within three days and the judgment be read
to the accused in open court. The presiding judge, after
pronouncing sentence, frequently canceled half of the term of the
sentence if the accused confessed to his crime. A convicted
person wishing to appeal was required to do so within fifteen
days. The case then was transferred to the Court of Appeal, which
could reverse or reduce, but not increase, the sentence imposed
by the original trial court.
Although periodic revisions of the Criminal Code improved the
quality of criminal justice, the system still suffered from
disparity in sentences. In many cases the court experienced
difficulty in determining appropriate sentences because the
minimum punishment specified by the Criminal Code was often quite
severe. In order that sentences for the same offense be
consistent without hampering the court's discretion, judges had a
list of standard sentences derived from past practices and
consideration of other relevant factors. These guidelines,
however, were not compulsory. To permit judges to exercise
informed discretion, the Ministry of Justice stressed the
importance of accurate information about the causes of the crime,
the nature of the accused, and other circumstances pertinent to
judicial decisions. Even so, the criminal courts showed some
difficulty in overcoming the historical tendency to regard
punishment solely as retribution for past misdeeds and deterrence
of future antisocial behavior.
Data as of September 1987
|
