The Problems Temporary Release Accused or Defendant in Criminal cases with Risk Assessment System in at the Court Hearing

Abstract

This independent study aimed (1) to study concepts, theories and principles of right and freedom protection of alleged offenders or defendants for temporary release with a risk assessment system, (2) to examine laws and measures of temporary release with the risk assessment system according to Thai and foreign laws of the United States of America and Japan, (3) to analyze problems and obstacles of temporary releases with the risk assessment system and (4) to propose a guideline for amendment of laws and measures of temporary release with the risk assessment system.
This independent study is qualitative research, conducted by examining related documents including laws, textbooks, articles, theses, research studies, journals, instruction manuals and information from electronic media in Thailand and foreign countries.
The findings revealed that (1) the temporary release with risk assessment system contained principles restricted for alleged offenders or defendants whose punishment was imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, and who had a person certifying their behavior and reliable reference. The temporary release with risk assessment system could not provide assistance for the alleged offenders or defendants thoroughly. It was just to give an opportunity to some groups of impoverished alleged offenders or defendants to access the right of temporary release with the risk assessment system. (2) According to the study of US laws, the right of temporary release was granted to alleged offenders or defendants in every case except for cases subjected to a death sentence. Meanwhile, Japanese laws contained a mechanism to screen alleged offenders from the start of case proceedings and the defendants were granted right of temporary release in the court’s proceedings only. Speaking of Thailand, the right for temporary release was granted to alleged offenders or defendants based on the risk assessment system under restricted principles as specified by courts. (3) A problem of temporary release with risk assessment system was the limitation of punishment of alleged offenders of defendants whose imprisonment must not exceed 5 years. Furthermore, there was no entity to support the courts with information of the alleged offenders or defendants, and there was no person to certify their behavior nor a reference. Moreover, the risk level and conditions of supervision were not suitable with the penalty. Therefore, the researcher has some recommendations that (4) the Criminal Procedures Code, Section 108 should be amended by adding parts related to the diagnosis of a petition for temporary release provided that the risk assessment result be employed for consideration. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 190, should be amended by adding provisions related to punishment of alleged offenders or defendants who evade during temporary as Section 190/1 that “Any person who evades during temporary release from a court, a public prosecutor, an inquiry person or a competent officer who grants temporary release in a criminal case shall be subject to…” The punishment for that evasion shall not be terminated because of on litigation, case dismissal, disposal, or withdrawal for that alleged offender or defendant.