Globalization and Restorative Justice: in the Thai Criminal Justice System

Jutharat Ua-amnoey*

Table 2 Type and Number of Juvenile Delinquents

			Year
Type	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Offense against Body and Life	1,112	1,271	1,491	1,238	1,831
Offense against Property	5,657	6,010	6,167	5,109	5,625
Sex Offense	542	659	669	545	927
Offense against Narcotics Law	11,856	17,274	17,937	14,270	15,318
Others	10,117	5,458	4,980	4,229	5,921
Total	29,284	30,672	31,244	25,391	29,622

3) Moreover, as with most countries around the world in Thailand the victims of crime were neglected by the criminal law, by the criminal justice process, and also by the government's criminal policy. Consequently, victims themselves had to file for restitution from offenders by using the civil court system. This type of situation results in the victims feeling bored, disappointed, and powerless. In 1977, the constitution accepted the crime victim's right for the first time through the Crime Victim Compensation and Restitution and Expense for the Accused Act 2001. Two years letter, figures on victim compensation showed that the 21 crime victims received 1,542,082 baht (or USD 39,000) and that the 32 wrongfully accused persons received 11,737,087 baht (or USD 300,000) in compensation(4) which is eight times more than that paid out in compensation to crime victims. These figures make several things apparent. First, the government had paid a great deal of money to compensate for the flaws in its criminal justice system, more in fact than was paid to the actual victims of crime. Second, the money used to pay out this compensation came from government budgets that comprise, at least in part, crime victims' taxes. Third, this method of compensation does nothing to directly show the responsibilities of offenders to their victims because the state took this action, Thus, the adoption of the Act actually led Thai society far from the principles of restorative justice for a time.

Fourth, the strength of the Nation-State weakened communities and led to confusion in their roles as peacekeepers, and the network of community control was destroyed. Thinking of crime prevention and control as "the officers' duties and roles," in community organizations only reported crimes and illegal behaviors to the policemen in order to be dutiful citizens. This clearly divided the duties of the people and the duties of the officers in the Nation-State.

However, in return for the state's negligence, in the ABAC's 2000 poll(5) "Attitudes toward criminal justice's works," fewer than half the respondents (43.1%) said that they would willingly be a witness in a criminal case. Furthermore, 78.8% of the 52.0% of respondents unwilling to serve as witnesses explained that their reluctance to testify stemmed from their mistrust in the witness security protection program, while 27.3% said that they did not want to be involved with law enforcement, and 13.6% said involvement was a waste of time.

The above empirical data emphasizes that The Thai criminal justice process confronted the emergency situation or crisis and especially, faced the complex problems caused by the declination of the retributive paradigm that focused on punishing the offender by putting them into jail and neglecting victims and communities.