This report is provided by Professor Prathan Watanavanich in reference to the community corrections of the contemporary Thailand and their facing problems
In-Country Service Training Program
"Cooperation in Community-Based Corrections in 2000"
Probation Department, Ministry of Justice, Thailand
I Preface
The Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice with the auspicious of technical and financial support carried out under JICA and UNAFEI In-Country service training program. The training course was conducted in the cooperation among agencies for Community-Based Corrections in 2000. The course held on 21-22 February 2000 at the Ambassador City Jomthien Hotel, Pattaya, Chonburi Province. There were number of 105 participants and 12 observers attended the seminar course. The participants and observers were invited from high-ranking administrators or experts who have been working in the various agencies of criminal justice administration. These included the Department of Probation, the Observation and Protection Center (Juvenile), the Department of Correction; judges and staff of the courts, Office of the Attorney General, Volunteer Probation Officers and others related agencies. The objectives were to exchange ideas and experiences in rehabilitation of offenders as well as to promote the cooperation among the agencies. The contents of the course were courteously presented by 2 visiting Japanese experts from the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) and respected experts from all rehabilitation and agencies concerned in Thailand.
II Summary of the Presentations
Mr. Somchai Wongsawat, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice as a representative of Justice Minister presided the meeting and gave a speech on "The Ministry of Justice Plan for Rehabilitation of Offenders in Community-Based Correction in the year 2000". He stated that the alternatives to imprisonment have been accepted as a possible solution to prison overcrowding. An effective program has proven that this alternative was widely used as a suspension of imprisonment sentence with probation. There are two agencies responsible for the offenders to be placed on probation. The Observation and Protection Center is responsible for juvenile offenders and the Department of Probation is responsible for Adult Probation Service, a Rehabilitation Center for Drug Addicts and a Mediation project in Community. These measures are considered to be more useful to society rather than traditional term of imprisonment. Although the court shall be separated from the Ministry of Justice in October 2000, in accordance with the Constitution of B.E. 2540 (1997). It was noteworthy that "shall the Ministry of Justice include the Department of Probation and the Observation and Protection Center in the new structure," is pending to be resolved in the Constitution Court. The Ministry still has strongly supported the cooperation among the criminal justice agencies in order to achieve rehabilitation of offenders and crime prevention goals.
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa, UNAFEI Professor, mentioned to the course offered by UNAFEI and its development, including missions and activities and then he presented his idea on an alternative to imprisonment. The alternative to imprisonment was widely used in Japan in order to solve a prison-overcrowding problem. The total numbers of defendants whose cases adjudicated by the courts of first instance were at 1,086,339 cases in 1996. There were only 2% of the aforementioned defendants sentenced to imprisonment and a great number received suspension of imprisonment sentences. However, the judge must consider that non-custodial measures have considerable potential value for both offenders and the community. There are various types of alternative measures in Japan and other Asian countries, namely suspended and deferred sentence, fine, cautioning, conditional discharge, restitution, or compensation orders, community work program and probation. Finally, he explained a characteristic feature of suspension of prosecution system in Japan.
Mr. Shoji Imafuka, UNAFEI Professor, presented his lecture on "Development of Community-Based Approach of Adult Probation in Japan." In Japan, the Rehabilitation Department, Ministry of Justice is responsible for administration of adult and juvenile probation, adult and juvenile paroles, aftercare services for discharged offenders, amnesty and crime prevention activities. For adult probation, it is used by the court as a measure complementary to the suspension of execution of sentence. Eligibility for probation consists of three minimum requirements.
1) The sentence of imprisonment is 3 years or fine of 500,000 yen or less; 2) The offender has not been sentenced to imprisonment in the last five years; and 3) The offence in question was not committed during previously ordered probation term. The probation officer, as an expert with scientific knowledge, and the volunteer probation officer (VPOs), as a person living in the same community with the offender, play different roles in supervising an offender. Besides the probation officers and VPO's, there is a non-profit organization assisting the Offenders' Rehabilitation that creates by law for offenders Rehabilitation Services (1995). Mission of this organization is to provide rehabilitation services such as accommodating offenders in halfway houses, providing material aid, financially supporting other rehabilitation organization under the supervision of a probation office. In addition to the Juridical Person for Offenders' Rehabilitation, there are other private organizations which support the community-based treatment of offenders, such as Women 's Association for Rehabilitation Aid (WARA), Big Brothers and Sisters (BBS), Association and Cooperative Employers.
III Summary of the Discussion
There was a panel discussions on "the Cooperation in Community-Based Correction in 2000." The panel consisted of Mr. Somsak Tantiphirom, deputy chief justice of region 4, Dr. Kittipong Kittayaruk, director of Thailand Criminal Law-Institute, Office of the Attorney General, Mr. Somyot Wattanuphirom, expert in Rehabilitation and Community Affairs, Department of Probation, Mr. Natthee Chitsawang, expert in Correction System Development, Department of Corrections, Mr. Phichai Ratanapanlop director of Central Observation and Protection Center. Mr. Prathan Watanavanich, professor of the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University presided as chairman of the seminar.
The discussions
on the Cooperation in community-Based corrections in 2000 were
divided into 4 parts. The first part was current mission of
the rehabilitation agencies, namely the Protection and Observation
Center, the Department of Probation, the Department of Corrections,
and other agencies related to the rehabilitation, including the
Court of Justice and the Office of Attorney General. The second
part was the agencies' mission after having separated the court
administration from the Ministry of Justice in accordance with
the Constitution BE 2540 (1997). The third part was the cooperation
among related agencies in community-based correction in 2000.
The fourth part was an open discussion. A comprehensive content
may be concluded into 2 main points. The first was the way and
means to solve a problem of an ineffective criminal justice system
that was arising due to lack of collaboration among agencies
both governmental and non-governmental sectors. The second point
was the tendency of each agency towards changing of policy after
the court separation. At present, the court had benefited from
probation work in two ways, a fact finding of circumstance of
the case from a pre-sentence investigation report for deliberation
and a supervision of probationer which is the most effective
alternative to imprisonment. There has been a close relationship
and cooperation between the courts and the rehabilitation agencies
even there were some difficulties in collaborative action.
Although, some judges felt anxious that it might be some negative
impact on probation work, if the probation agencies were under
the Ministry of Justice, after the court having separated from
the Ministry. In contrary, some judges still believe in the benefit
of probation and the Protection and Observation Center were still
under the administration of the Ministry of Justice. It would
be possible that all of the community correction of the offender's
agencies are now separated in different organization, might be
included in a new restructured organization. The Department
of Probation under the Ministry of Justice can provide social
inquiry and supervision work for the suspension of prosecution
carried out in public prosecution stage. However, all related
agencies will increase mutual assistance whether the rehabilitation
agencies will be under the Ministry of Justice or under the court
administration.
IV. Recommendations
The recommendations are drawn from presentations and discussions on the cooperation in Community-Based Correction in 2000 for deliberation and implementation.
1. The role and
responsibility of a professional probation officer and a volunteer
probation officer should be clearly defined by a job description.
Probation officer should adjust himself/herself from a performer
of most rehabilitation works to become a facilitator and coordinator
who is guiding a policy and work plan, monitoring, coordinating,
evaluating as well as an advisor to the probationer.
2. An early release from probation order or discharge from probation
should be considered into practice in the Thai probation system
with the emphasis on adopting standardization for a decreasing
caseload.
3. The suspension of prosecution should be implemented as an
alternative to criminal trial in order to reduce undesirable
caseload in the court.
4. The department of probation should be allocated budget and
manpower in proportion to its workload and new assignment (if
any, such as undertaken a basic legal and mediation training
as an alternative to dispute settlement). In addition, other
duties and responsibilities are likely to be entrusted with the
department under the Rehabilitation of Drug Addict Act of B.E.
2534, the taking over of juvenile justice probation system of
the juvenile and family courts, the parolee, or the accused who
is on suspended prosecution order.
5. The Ministry of Justice under the proposed structure should
have an agency entrusted with the duty in providing legal service
and dissemination of knowledge to the public and implementing
a mediation, conciliation and arbitration as alternative to the
settlement of disputes in order to the reduction of trivial cases
that entered into trial in the court of justice.
6. The rehabilitation agency should enhance citizen's awareness
and involvement in crime prevention programs and rehabilitation
activities.
7. Promote and enhance collaboration between criminal justice
agencies, including setting up coordinating mechanism and reorganizing
structural repetition and financial obstacles to crime prevention
and rehabilitation programs.
8. The criminal justice information center should be established
in the new setting of the Ministry of Justice, including database
on criminal record, crime trend analysis and other innovation
in order to support the compilation, dissemination and sharing
of information among agencies.
9. The criminal justice agency should realize that each component
exists in the justice system and it should have systemic approach
to planning, resolving the problem as well as differences in
achieving its own goal.
10. An initiative should be made to bipartisan or interdepartmental
research project, training, visitation, study tour and exchange
of idea and information for a new vision.
11. The formation of a council, or committee on rehabilitation
both at national and local levels should be established to strengthen
community participation and solidarity in the society to solve
the crime problem and rehabilitation of offenders.
12. The existing criminal justice coordination committee should
undertake more significant roles or reorganization as pointed
out earlier and envisage strategic plan to achieve the committee
tangible objectives.
13. The national committee on criminal justice policy should
be established, or merged with other similar recommended organization
to coordinate all agencies' activities for the purpose of crime
prevention and treatment of offenders that may incorporate into
the national economic and social development plan.
14. An independent institution of criminology and criminal justice
incorporated under legislation should be established as a national
academy to conduct research, providing technical service and
consultation to the government and criminal justice agency.
15. The outcome of this seminar and recommendations should be
disseminated to all agencies concerned, or any potential individual
who is capable of and empowered to submit, instruct, appoint,
designate or formulate policy and plan for the development and
implementation of a national plan in the criminal justice administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
