Problem with the interpretation of the word“sexual intercourse” under the Criminal Code of Thailand

Abstract

          The definition of the term “sexual intercourse” under Article 1 (18) of the Criminal Code of Thailand refers to the use of the penis of the perpetrator only, which is inappropriate for the natural behavior of human beings that are different in gender. It does not cover victims forced to use their penis to intrude on the vulva or the anus or oral cavity of the person who acts the same way. In addition, the legislation is not in line with changes and advances in medical technology, especially with the acceptance of sex reassignment surgery, which may affect human dignity and equal protection despite the sex. Thus, this results in a problem in interpreting the term “sexual intercourse” as it could have many meanings. The researcher, therefore, considers that the term “sexual intercourse” should be defined to include victims of natural sex heterogeneity or later sex of choice who are treated in a similar manner to be equally protected. This way of interpretation aims to punish offenders of all genders equally as Lex Certa in criminal law is guarantee of clarity absolute clarity in criminal law.