The research on “Alternative Sentencing : Intermediate Punishment”
was conducted with objectives to 1) study patterns and principles
of intermediate punishments in sentencing the defendant in criminal cases as
provided by laws of foreign countries and patterns of intermediate punishment
measures as specified by the international model (The Tokyo Rules)
2) identify patterns and principles of intermediate punishment measures
for being used a model for drafting a law of intermediate punishment that
is suitable for Thailand.
The methodology combined both quantitative and qualitative
researches. The qualitative data were collected from concerning documents
while the quantitative data were collected from the sample group of
386 judges, who were carrying out duties to deliberate criminal case
sentences in first instance and appeals courts within Bangkok and vicinity.
Qualitative analysis was performed by using a material comparative analysis
method while Quantitative analysis was performed by determining the Mean and
the Standard Deviation of the data population
The result shows that intermediate punishments, which are appropriate
for Thailand, can be attained by legislating an act prescribing intermediate
punishment measures into 10 forms, for example: Verbal Warning; Intensive
Probation; and Electronic Monitoring while the substantial principles are that the
Court should impose such punishment on a defendant, whose conviction is not
exceeding a period of 5 years imprisonment and in a case that the defendant
violates the intermediate sanction, the Court may impose the predetermined
imprisonment on such defendant.
The research suggests that the State should develop availability
of organization administration, budget and personnel and provide pertinent
officials with knowledge and understanding about a concept of alternative
sentencing via imposing intermediate punishments prior to the law is in
effect and encourage legislation for intermediate punishments with
provisions that do not so limit the judicial discretion. Moreover, the Court
should provide a recommendation for the judges along with sentencing
guidelines to help implementation on the intermediate sanctions so that
the Court’s discretion across the country is shaped in the same direction.