Bail for minor offenders may ease Thai jail overcrowding

[webfact]

Bail for minor offenders may ease jail overcrowding
Piyanut Tumnukasetchai
The Nation

Official sees fund as an opportunity for underprivileged to access justice

BANGKOK: -- NEARLY 60,000 DEFENDANTS will enjoy temporary freedom during court trials, if a plan to place on bail those facing prosecution over minor offences gets the go-ahead.

The plan, if implemented, will also ease prison overcrowding.

At present, the country's prisons hold about 310,000 inmates.

Justice Ministry deputy permanent secretary Tawatchai Thaikyo yesterday revealed he had come up with the initiative to use Bt120 million from the Justice Fund to seek bail for defendants being prosecuted for alleged minor offences such as gambling or encroachment on state land.

He said about 59,000 defendants are now facing court trials for allegedly committing minor offences.

Most do not have the money to secure bail.

"This means they have lost the opportunity to work and take care of their families during court trials," Tawatchai pointed out.

He said he planned to present the project to bail out these defendants to Justice Minister Paiboon Khumchaya and then for the Cabinet to consider soon.

Tawatchai said this project would not only ease prison overcrowding but also improve people's access to justice.

Corrections Department director-general Vittaya Suriyawong said this project would be an opportunity for the underprivileged who do not have money to secure bail and end up behind bars.

Better chance of getting bail

"The project will improve their access to bail. But whether their bail requests are approved will depend on the court," Vittaya said.

He said if there were risks that the defendants would jump bail or intimidate witnesses, the court would not grant them bail.

"And definitely, those facing serious charges will not be eligible for this project," he said.

The Corrections Department will be asked to survey exactly how many inmates would be eligible to join the project if it was implemented.

According to Tawatchai, the Justice Ministry has also been reviewing how to handle criminal cases that can be settled out of court in a more efficient manner.

"Some legal amendments may be necessary," Tawatchai said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Bail-for-minor-offenders-may-ease-jail-overcrowdin-30244053.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-25

[Bluespunk]

"or encroachment on state land."

Good news for all those building huge resorts on govt land/protected reserves.

After they are all in gaol.

Aren't they?

Hmm......

Edited September 24, 2014 by Bluespunk

[EricBerg]

First the BiB can't do their jobs, now the whole justice systems collapses coz they can't keep prisoners in prison. It's one big sad farce. Free crime.

[kalbo123]

Maybe they should give the poor the same sentences as the rich, then the prisons will be empty!

[ABCer]

Minor offenders? or minor offences?

'The Nation' needs a clearer mind, a better English, maybe both?

Minor offences perpetrators must not be incarcerated. Neither before nor after the Court hearing. Fine is usually enough.

Minor offenders is quite a different story. Often they are involved in Major crimes. Like gang rapes, gang shootings, hard drugs pushing etc.

Wake up there at 'The Nation'. Do you want a Free Crime country or Crime Free country? And do you know the difference?

Edited September 25, 2014 by ABCer

[NongKhaiKid]

The underprivileged can gain access to bail and of course the underprivileged don't have the wherewithal, contacts etc to leg it unlike their privileged counterparts, providing that is the latter actually face justice.

[Commerce]

Maybe sentences should be appropriated?

15 years for picking mushrooms...... well? What I say to judges about that is: ............ , and when the well-off walk away from murder, because daddy is powerful. A man beginning with the name C comes to mind.

[BSJ]

"Justice Ministry deputy permanent secretary Tawatchai Thaikyo yesterday revealed he had come up with the initiative to use Bt120 million from the Justice Fund to seek bail for defendants being prosecuted for alleged minor offences such as gambling or encroachment on state land." So now the state is providing bond money! I don't understand the logic. The same system that has leveled charges against people is now providing bail money with no surety. But I guess we could take the word of a criminal they will appear in court.

[Pib]

Justice Ministry deputy permanent secretary Tawatchai Thaikyo yesterday revealed he had come up with the initiative to use Bt120 million from the Justice Fund to seek bail for defendants being prosecuted for alleged minor offences such as gambling or encroachment on state land.

Or said another way, taxpayer funded bail. When the accused don't show up for court dates then the bail is forfeited which means taxpayers lose the money and the police start hunting him/her down again. And the accused probably won't feel like he's hurting the taxpayer (as if he cares) because the money the court collects from forfeited bail ultimately ends up back in the government's general treasury. No doubt this program will help some accused who will indeed meet their court dates, but others....

[Morakot]

minor offences such as gambling or encroachment on state land.

Begs the question why these offences carry a prison sentence in the first place.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Morakot

[Pib]

minor offences such as gambling or encroachment on state land.

Begs the question why these offences carry a prison sentence in the first place.

Just paying a fine don't seriously scare most people, but if there is the possibility of prison time then that restrains most people from breaking the law. Then of course you have those who don't seem to care whether they pay a fine and/or do prison time.

[SOTIRIOS]

.....not comforting.....

[Morakot]

minor offences such as gambling or encroachment on state land.

Begs the question why these offences carry a prison sentence in the first place.

Just paying a fine don't seriously scare most people, but if there is the possibility of prison time then that restrains most people from breaking the law. Then of course you have those who don't seem to care whether they pay a fine and/or do prison time.

Particularly with encroachment, enforcement and deterrent are normally the removal of the structure rather than the locking up of the offender.

For gambling, I'd say repeat "offenders" might need help in addressing an addiction problem.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Morakot

[prakhonchai nick]

Lets speed up the courts process.

Minor infringements of the law should be brought to court the next day. No need for senior judges - why not adopt the magistrates system as used in the UK.

[aussieinthailand]

"or encroachment on state land."

Good news for all those building huge resorts on govt land/protected reserves.

After they are all in gaol.

Aren't they?

Hmm......

release the ones that have been stitched up, then go after the real bad guy's like, the crooked monks, the mafia, real estate agents, Red bull cop killer, they will have to put Suthep and his kids in gaol for land deals, poachers, human trafficker's, then the young lady that killed 9 people in the mini bus, then let out the elderly couple in gaol for 15 years for picking mushrooms coz they didn't have the money to pay police, Dammmm, ehh we need a bigger gaol coz we've run out of inactive post's.

[bangkokheat]

if the courts fined these so called 60,000 minor offenders 5000bht each, presto, 300,000,000 bht revenue should go a long way to establish new prison

[prakhonchai nick]

if the courts fined these so called 60,000 minor offenders 5000bht each, presto, 300,000,000 bht revenue should go a long way to establish new prison

Trouble is these "minor offenders" are in jail for the simple reason they cannot find the money for bail -often less than 5000baht. What chance would they have of paying a similar fine.

The card and domino players in my village were last time I heard fined 1,500baht. Some could not pay and were jailed in lieu of fines at a rate of 1 day = 800baht!

[Ulic]

Not sure I understand, from what I have read over the years even those charged with major offences

seem to get bail. Often they even run away.

[prakhonchai nick]

Not sure I understand, from what I have read over the years even those charged with major offences

seem to get bail. Often they even run away.

Everyone seems to get bail, even murderers effectively caught in the act. THEY can raise bail, and invariably do a runner.

It is the poor and downtrodden villagers, who cannot even raise a few hundred baht for bail and are imprisoned awaiting a court hearing for something very trivial

My mate spent 5 days locked up for defending himself against an angry wife waving a knife. He was recommended to plead guilty to save more time in jail. He was fined 200baht!!!

[Thai at Heart]

What's the problem.

They already ball convicted murderer on appeal

[Carrerakiss]

If the taxpayer is going to provide the bail money, there is no point imposing bail in the first place. Imposing bail is meant to increase the chance that the alleged criminal actually appears in court for their trial because they face a monetary loss if they fail to do so. Paying the bail on their behalf means they could abscond without any financial penalty at all.

If the argument is that they would not abscond because they have ties to the community, family to support etc, then there is no need for bail and they should be released on their own cognizance. It's a gamble of course, but for minor offenses, there is not much that is lost as a result of people who abscond.

Far more important is the derisory bail set for people who face allegations of serious crime and reoffend whilst out on bail. The concept of a danger to the general community just doesn't seem to exist here.

So, waive bail for minor offenses where the accused has good ties to the local community, withhold bail for those who are facing accusations of serious crime and are judged to be a danger to the community. Isn't it common sense?

Yes, some decisions will be made and subsequently be shown to be wrong, but that's because each case will be a judgement based on facts provided.

Using public money like this just opens up the possibility for fraud by a patsy being granted bail under several fictitious names and absconding each time. It would need the connivance of the RTP but...........

Edited September 25, 2014 by Carrerakiss

[MediaWatcher]

Minor crimes...eg, police who murder and deal in drugs... Red Heir son's who kill police.... police who take tea money... government officials that commit crimes against the public and state..... oh, and the best the jet ski mafias from Phuket.

[JohnThailandJohn]

I think the Thailand is right up there with the US in having the highest percentage of their population behind bars. Interesting too the timing of this article as this just appeared yesterday in the news ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/24/california-voters-to-weigh-ballot-measure-to-drastically-overhaul-prison-system/ ) ... similar problem but California is looking to reclassify some crimes in order to reduce prison sentences.

[inzman]

Why would the govt earmark 120 million to pay for bail? They can just temporarily reduce bail for minor crimes to "OR" let them walk with a promise to return to court, instead of jailing for minor crimes. But then there wouldn't be that 120 million out there floating around and god knows that is the real reason for this action.

[JohnThailandJohn]

If the taxpayer is going to provide the bail money, there is no point imposing bail in the first place. Imposing bail is meant to increase the chance that the alleged criminal actually appears in court for their trial because they face a monetary loss if they fail to do so. Paying the bail on their behalf means they could abscond without any financial penalty at all.

If the argument is that they would not abscond because they have ties to the community, family to support etc, then there is no need for bail and they should be released on their own cognizance. It's a gamble of course, but for minor offenses, there is not much that is lost as a result of people who abscond.

Far more important is the derisory bail set for people who face allegations of serious crime and reoffend whilst out on bail. The concept of a danger to the general community just doesn't seem to exist here.

So, waive bail for minor offenses where the accused has good ties to the local community, withhold bail for those who are facing accusations of serious crime and are judged to be a danger to the community. Isn't it common sense?

Yes, some decisions will be made and subsequently be shown to be wrong, but that's because each case will be a judgement based on facts provided.

Using public money like this just opens up the possibility for fraud by a patsy being granted bail under several fictitious names and absconding each time. It would need the connivance of the RTP but...........

I am missing where it says tax payer money would be used to bail anyone out. I think you are forgetting we are reading translated version of what was reported/discussed. They appear to simply be saying they would grant these people lowered bail (pre final sentence release) conditions. Agree it would make no sense for the state to use its own money to pay itself for bail.

[Fred Flinstone]

What a great idea , bound to be a hit.

[inzman]

The report states that they are earmarking 120million baht from the justice fund to pay this bail. The justice fund is funded by the government which is funded by the taxpayer. Get it.

[Carrerakiss]

If the taxpayer is going to provide the bail money, there is no point imposing bail in the first place. Imposing bail is meant to increase the chance that the alleged criminal actually appears in court for their trial because they face a monetary loss if they fail to do so. Paying the bail on their behalf means they could abscond without any financial penalty at all.

If the argument is that they would not abscond because they have ties to the community, family to support etc, then there is no need for bail and they should be released on their own cognizance. It's a gamble of course, but for minor offenses, there is not much that is lost as a result of people who abscond.

Far more important is the derisory bail set for people who face allegations of serious crime and reoffend whilst out on bail. The concept of a danger to the general community just doesn't seem to exist here.

So, waive bail for minor offenses where the accused has good ties to the local community, withhold bail for those who are facing accusations of serious crime and are judged to be a danger to the community. Isn't it common sense?

Yes, some decisions will be made and subsequently be shown to be wrong, but that's because each case will be a judgement based on facts provided.

Using public money like this just opens up the possibility for fraud by a patsy being granted bail under several fictitious names and absconding each time. It would need the connivance of the RTP but...........

I am missing where it says tax payer money would be used to bail anyone out. I think you are forgetting we are reading translated version of what was reported/discussed. They appear to simply be saying they would grant these people lowered bail (pre final sentence release) conditions. Agree it would make no sense for the state to use its own money to pay itself for bail.

I believe Inzman has answered your question. Bail paid by Justice fund, said Justice fund funded by Government, Government funded by none other than the tax payer. I just cut to the Chase rather than detailing each individual step.

However, I don't see any reference to the reduced bail conditions to which you refer. Are you reading only the English version, or do you have access to a Thai language version?

[Jonmarleesco]

No doubt LM won't count as worthy of bail, no matter how flimsy the allegations.