Vitaya Suriyawong
Director, Planning Division, Department of Corrections, Nonthaburi
11000, Thailand.
Correctional systems in most countries have a range of non-custodial treatments. However, these measures have not been widely implemented because of some practical issues, leaving the overcrowding situation in prisons unresolved. This paper aims to discuss issues that hamper the wider implementation of non-custodial treatment in Thailand and to suggest some possible solutions, which may assist in easing the overcrowding situation. Resulting decreases in inmate numbers would enable the correctional systems to function more effectively.
The issue of restorative justice has become more recognized internationally, particularly in western society. The restorative justice was endorsed during the 10th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in the Year 2000, under which member states were encouraged to further develop a fair justice system.
This paper will firstly address issues associated with the wider implementation of non-custodial treatment in Thailand. Then, the possibility of initiating restorative justice programs in the Thai correctional system will be discussed. Finally, suggestions will be made for future implementation of a restorative justice model in the Thai correctional services.
Issues Associated with the Wider Implementation of Non-Custodial Treatment
In Thailand, non-custodial treatment
which enable correctional authority to offer an early release
to inmates, has been recognized as a legitimate measure to alleviate
the overcrowding situation. Three key measures have been implemented.
The Thai correctional authority has occasionally used the Royal
King's Pardon, parole, and sentence remission to reduce the overcrowding
situation and to be an incentive for improving inmate behavior.
The Royal King's Pardon authorizes the King, as head of State,
to grant pardon to any offenders. The benefits of this pardon
range from sentence commutation to unconditional release. In
the past, most inmates have received sentence commutation, in
which the reduction of their sentence is based on the scale written
in the Decree, ranging from 1/3 to 1/8 of their sentences. The
would-be-released inmates are those who have less than one year
of sentence to be served or those who are presumably harmless
to the society. The Cabinet usually recommends the King to grant
the Royal Pardon to commemorate the important national events,
such as His Majesty's 72nd Birthday, etc. (Refer to Table 1:
Number of Inmates released by the Royal King's Pardons)
Table 1 : Number of Inmates released by the Royal King's Pardons
|
|
Year |
|
|
| Royal Marriage of HRH Crown Prince | 1977 |
13,359 |
22,319 |
| His Majesty the King’s 50th anniversary Birthday | 1977 |
17,539 |
23,010 |
| Royal Ordination of HRH Crown Prince | 1979 |
12,033 |
32,158 |
| Her Majesty the Queen’s Birthday | 1980 |
16,164 |
29,661 |
| Bangkok Bicentennial | 1982 |
18,438 |
36,188 |
| His Majesty the King’s 60th Anniversary Birthday | 1987 |
37,400 |
46,603 |
| His Majesty longest accession to the throne | 1988 |
22,922 |
34,215 |
| 90th Anniversary of the Princess Mother | 1990 |
20,133 |
32,697 |
| Her Majesty the Queen 60th Anniversary | 1992 |
30,620 |
35,861 |
| His Majesty the King’ 50 year accession to the Throne | 1996 |
24,751 |
57,815 |
| His Majesty the King’s 6th Cycle Birthday | 1999 |
23,940 |
30,681 |
Any inmates who are classified
Good Class and above, serving more than 2/3 of the sentence,
may be paroled for the last portion of their sentence. The power
to grant parole belongs to the Director General of Corrections,
based on recommendations from the Standing Committee. However,
the number of inmates released on parole has been very low (around
1 per cent), compared with the total number of convicted inmates.
Sentence remission enables convicted inmates who are classified
Good Class and above to earn sentence remission ranging from
3-5 days a months. If inmates accumulate remission day equal
to their remaining sentence, they will be released under supervision.
(Refer to Table 2: Number of Inmates Released on Sentence Remission
and Parole in 5 Years)
Table 2: Number of Inmates Released
on Sentence Remission and Parole in 5 Years
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||
| 1995 |
17,460 |
2,109 |
67,409 |
6,579 |
73,920 |
| 1996 |
17,543 |
802 |
58,935 |
6,401 |
65,336 |
| 1997 |
18,670 |
1,114 |
66,465 |
8,855 |
75,320 |
| 1998 |
17,671 |
1,016 |
84,219 |
12,808 |
97,027 |
| 1999 |
23,056 |
1,076 |
106,023 |
19,235 |
125,258 |
Although Thai correctional services have attempted to implement wider non-custodial treatment, through the three examples described above, decreases in inmate numbers have not occurred. With the exception of the Royal King's Pardon, which has enabled mass releases of convicted inmates at one time (refer to Table 1), the other two measures, parole and sentence remission, have had limited implementation. In the following section, issues associated with the effective implementation of non-custodial treatment will be highlighted.
1. The Excessive Use of Imprisonment
The excessive use of imprisonment has resulted in overcrowding
in Thai correctional facilities. According to the Penal Code
B.E. 2499 (1956), there are 5 types of punishment that offenders
may receive, depending on the severity of their offences. These
punishments include: capital punishment; imprisonment; confinement
in certain settings; fine; and forfeiture of property. Although
there are five penalty levels, imprisonment is still the major
mode of penalty imposed by the courts. One of the key examples
was the anti-amphetamine campaign launched by the government
in 1997. The campaign resulted in increasing policing of, and
penalty for amphetamine offenders. And consequently the prison
population increased dramatically, out-numbering the capacity
of the prisons at least three folds in just three years. Severe
overcrowding, coupled with the large number of long sentence
inmates, made it difficult for the Thai Department of Correction
to undertake effective inmate drug rehabilitation programs, due
to space inadequacy in correctional facilities.
2. The Government Policy
The Government set the Prime Minister's Directives (No 141/2541(1998)
dated 19 August 2541 (1998)) launching comprehensive strategies
to address drug problems in Thailand. The strategies state that
inmates on drug charges are not entitled any benefits or privileges
according to the correctional law, regardless of their good behavior.
This policy caused difficulties in prison management, whereby
inmates are divided into two groups, drug and non-drug inmates.
Treating the two groups of inmates, who received different benefits
in one prison, is a challenging and formidable task for the Thai
correctional staff. The policy also has impacted on the number
the number of inmates who are eligible to receive non-custodial
treatment programs, i.e drug related offenders are not eligible
for parole.
The Thai correctional authority cannot directly influence the above two issues due to government drug policies and the excessive use of imprisonment. However, the Thai correctional authority is actively pursuing indirect measures such as educating the public on the harm of imprisonment and encouraging changes in the public attitudes towards stiff penalties. This may in turn result in a more leniency towards offenders.
3. Rigid Criteria for Granting
Sentence Remission and Parole
Rigid criteria for granting the sentence remission and parole
have been developed by the Department of Corrections. To earn
sentence remission, inmates must behave well throughout their
incarceration period and the inmate's family must be investigated
to assess the likelihood of re-offending. The conditions for
supervision once remission has been granted are very detail and
cannot be changed over time. Consequently, many inmates have
difficulties adhering to the conditions throughout supervision
period.
The criteria for granting parole is more rigid than the criteria for sentence remission. Although the correctional law allows the Director General of Corrections to grant parole to inmates for good behavior, who have served more than 2/3 of their sentence (regardless of the length of their remaining sentence), the policy is that inmates may be paroled when their remaining sentence is less than 4 years for non-drug inmates and 2 years for drug inmates. These rigid criteria limit the wider implementation of non-custodial treatment in Thailand.
The Thai Department of Corrections needs to review its policy on non-custodial treatment and the criteria for granting it. This review should aim at increasing the number of inmates receiving non-custodial treatment, and therefore offer well-behaved inmates with further opportunities to rejoin the community. This would in turn result in a decrease in the prison population.
4. Lack of Community support
The correctional system must assume responsibility for enlisting
broad community and government support for correctional programs.
However, very little public involvement has been permitted and
realized, and therefore unconcerned public has been relatively
unaware of correctional issues. Correctional agencies have operated
with little public scrutiny and in general have enjoyed that
autonomy while simultaneously complaining about the lack of public
support for their endeavors. Given the realities of rising community
concern and citizen involvement, these circumstances are likely
to be altered drastically in the years ahead. To day the correctional
systems bears the heavy burden of responsibilities for lack of
involvement with community and support from the government in
the past.
One of the strategies implemented to obtain public acceptance of offenders, and the role of corrections is to educate the public on focused issues. For example, in 1999 the Thai correctional system faced a severe overcrowding situation, whereby the total prison population was more than double the approved capacity. Although strenuous efforts had been made to mitigate this crisis, the Department realized that the general public should also be aware of the adverse effect of imprisonment, and that there should be other diversion programs for the treatment of offenders rather than traditional institutionalization. The Department believes that media coverage will assist in increasing community awareness and support.
Concerning linkage between corrections and the community is difficult as correctional agencies have traditionally maintained isolation. Thus, to obtain community support constructively, the Thai correctional systems must provide a continuous flow of information concerning issues and alternatives involved in implementing correctional programs to the public, and thereby the community may participate intelligently in any major decisions.
5. Foreign Inmates
Foreign inmates is another issue that limits the wider implementation
of non-custodial treatment. According to the immigration law,
foreign inmates must be deported soon after being released from
prisons as a persona non grata. Therefore, foreign inmates are
not eligible for non-institutional treatment because the conditions
require inmates to stay in Thailand during their supervision
period. More than 5,000 foreign inmates must serve their full
sentence, which worsens both the overcrowding situation and the
effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in Thailand.
Restorative Justice: A Thai Perspective
The restorative justice approach has emerged within community corrections with the aims of denouncing crime, reforming the offenders, preventing crime through community involvement, helping victims, making good the suffering caused by the crime, and keeping the costs of administering justice to a minimum. Today, in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the concept of restorative justice is tied to diverse practices, including conferencing, sentencing circles, and victim-offender mediation schemes. These practices focus on repairing the harm caused by crime, by holding moderated meetings with crime victims, offenders, and others affected by crime. Restorative justice practices can be used at different stages in the justice system: as a diversion from court, as a pre-sentencing option and following the release of a person from prison. They can also be used in the handling of family welfare, child protection matters and workplace disputes.
In the Thai correctional system, the restorative justice approach is relatively new and further education is required to inform people involved in the criminal justice system and the community at large. It will take time before the introduction of a restorative justice as a supplement to the existing treatment measures is included in the Thai legal framework.
However, the possible implication without touching legal matters is the inclusion of a Conferencing in the criteria for granting parole or sentence remission. The Thai Director General of Corrections has the authority to set criteria, under which the inmates who have served sufficient time to apply for parole and sentence remission, must meet. Example of the criteria include: having a foster person and a shelter during the supervision period, having no objection from the Chief of Police and the District Director in charge of the area, etc. The inclusion of conferencing between inmates prior to being eligible for parole and victims, would be viable and helpful to minimize the chance of inmates re-offending. Such criteria may require that in order to receive non institutional treatments, inmates must participate in conferencing (with the exception of those who have committed victimless crime). Conference outcome would be agreed on and would be supplemented in the supervision conditions.
The inclusion of conferencing as one of the criteria is aimed to offer inmates an opportunity to discuss the past crime, or express their remorse for their actions to the victims. The conference, lasting 1 to 2 hours, should be attended by the victims and their supporters, the inmates and their supporters and other relevant parties. The conference coordinator focuses the discussion on condemning the act, without condemning the character of the actor. Inmates would be asked to explain what happened during the past incarceration, how they have felt about the crime, and what they think should be done. The victims and others are asked to describe the physical, financial and emotional consequences of the crime. This discussion may lead the inmates, their families and friends to experience the shame of the act, prompting an apology to the victim. A plan of action is developed and signed by key participants. The plan may include the inmates paying compensation to the victim, doing work for the victim or the community, or other undertakings the participants may agree upon. It is the responsibility of the conference participants to determine the outcomes that are most appropriate for the victims and the inmates.
There are reasons to believe that conferencing will assist inmates to realize the implications of their past crimes and to discourage them from committing further crimes when they are released. It is hope that the victims will feel relieved and reduce the fear of reprisal from the offenders. This restorative justice would in turn provide a safer community.
Conclusion
There is growing evidence that alternatives to long term confinement are as effective as prison for many offenders. However, gaining public support for these alternatives will be difficult, due to the political risk of working in opposition to the general public belief the longer prison sentences will result in crime prevention. The correctional authority must develop a skillful marketing strategy that will assist in changing public attitudes. There are some practical issues that can be addressed within the jurisdiction of the Thai correctional authority. These are for example: the relaxation of rigid criteria, the enlisting of more community support, the provision of information to the general public and the inclusion of conferencing in the parole and sentence remission determination. These measures will assist in improving the effectiveness of the rehabilitative function of the Thai correctional system.
--------------------------------------
