Application of the philosophy of criminology and penology as a criterion for suspended imposition of sentence of Thai court

The investigation of the concept of criminological philosophy and penology was to help stipulate the criteria of the punishment suspension measures in the Criminal Code, Section 56 for substantial application. A documentary research and in-depth interview were conducted with the judges working for 1...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Chulachadang Swasdiyakorn Vivatvanich
Other Authors: Srisombat Chokprajakchat
Language:English
Published: Mahidol University. Mahidol University Library and Knowledge Center 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/89807
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Mahidol University
Language: English
Description
Summary:The investigation of the concept of criminological philosophy and penology was to help stipulate the criteria of the punishment suspension measures in the Criminal Code, Section 56 for substantial application. A documentary research and in-depth interview were conducted with the judges working for 10 years and above in the Trial Court, the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court. The results revealed that the sentence stipulated were be appropriate for the offense and the offenders. The suspension was a measure the court could decide to impose on some types of offense and for the offenders appropriate to their conditions and their individuality in each case. This was to provide opportunity for the offenders to turn to be good citizens, without criminal records and to deter short-term imprisonment. Most judges, on the contrary, never applied the punishment suspension measures in their judgments, but imposed the reprieve. Rationally, most judges reflected on the penalty account and viewed that it was adequate that the punishment stipulated needed to follow the penalty account and the laws while disregarding other facts such as the defendant's historical records, gravity, and the damages caused by the offense. The judges might also fear that if the penalty account had not been followed, they would be blamed by not aligning with the penalty account; it was then inferred as a corruption of their judgment. Consequently, the judges had to adhere to the penalty account as the principle of judgment in order to protect themselves and ignored to find some facts to complement their judgment in the punishment stipulation. There should be the standard criteria to enable the judges to impose the punishment suspension measures in their judgments through using the concept of criminological philosophy and penology as guides for the substantial stipulation. The recommendations from the study were; it was necessary to stipulate the criteria of penalty account because each punishment stipulated, the judges had to reflect the circumstances as case-by-case. Although some cases had the similar offense however their elements might differ among the offenders, the victims, and their causes. However, offenses should be stipulated in the rate of the penalty account so that the courts could, in the same direction, impose the punishment suspension measures and meet the rule of law. It would be useful to the justice administration and society. The knowledge and the concept of penology theory should be promoted among the judges who were the practitioners and the direct imposers of the punishment over the offenders but they might misunderstand its principles to rehabilitate offenders.