1. Academic information from
international community about death penalty
(1) World Day Against the Death
Penalty was first launched in 2013 by the World Coalition Against
the Death Penalty (WCADP) and since then 10 October has been marked
as World Day Against the Death Penalty.
(2) Abolitionist and Retentionist
Countries in the World According to the 2016 report on executions
and death penalty worldwide, more than two thirds of the countries in
the world are abolitionist countries which have either abolish death
penalty in law or in practice. As of 31 December 2016, (1) 104
countries have abolished death penalty for all crimes, (2) seven
countries have abolished death penalty for ordinary crimes, and (3)
30 countries have been abolitionist in practice, altogether (1) to
(3) 141 countries, save for 57 retentionists.
(3) Abolitionist and Retentionist
Countries in ASEAN As to the number of ASEAN countries that are
abolitionist and retentionist, it can be described as follows (1)
countries that have abolished death penalty for all crimes including
Cambodia and the Philippines, (2) countries that have abolished death
penalty in practice including Brunei, Burma and Laos, and (3)
countries that retain death penalty including Indonesia, Malaysia,
Vietnam and Thailand.
(4) The use of death penalty and the
number of death row inmates
Execution has been carried out through
various means at times. During 1935-2003, the death penalty was
implemented by shooting. The number of death row prisoners executed
by shooting is altogether 319 including 316 males and three females.
On 18 September 2003, Thailand has
changed execution method from firing squad to lethal Injection, the
first of which was carried out on 18 September 2003 against four
prisoners convicted on drug-related offences. The last execution in
Thailand took place on 24 August 2009 against two prisoners convicted
on drug-related offences. There are, therefore, six prisoners
altogether who have been executed this way. From 1935 until present,
325 prisoners have been executed.
As to the current number of death row
inmates, there are 447 of them, of which only 157 have been handed
with the final verdicts already (68 on drug-related offences and 89
on ordinary crimes) as per the table below (source: Department of
Corrections, April 2017)
Gender
|
Drug-related offences
|
Ordinary crimes
|
||||
Appeals Court
|
Supreme Court
|
Final verdict prisoners
|
Appeals Court
|
Supreme Court
|
Final verdict prisoners
|
|
| Male | 105 | 12 | 55 | 110 | 6 | 85 |
| Female | 51 | 0 | 13 | 6 | 0 | 4 |
| Total | 156 | 12 | 68 | 116 | 6 | 89 |
It should be noted that the last
execution in Thailand took place in August 2009 and since then there
has been no other executions. And if Thailand can refrain from
implementing the capital punishment in the next two years, it would
make a decade free of execution as a result of which Thailand would
be counted among the abolitionist countries in practice according to
the Moratorium.
2. Previous implementation for the
abolition of death penalty by the Ministry of Justice’s Rights and
Liberties Protection Department can be summarized as follows;
2.1 Feasibility study on the
abolition of death penalty according to the Second National Human
Rights Action Plan with the following detail;
(1) Review information from within and
outside the country: Domestically, there has been a review of all
laws that inflict death penalty including the nature of the crime or
gravity of the offences, statistics of cases that have reached final
verdicts for death penalty and accumulative statistics of mandatory
death penalty sentencing in Thailand ten years until now.
Internationally, an attempt was made to explore information
concerning countries that have made change to their capital
punishment and the retentionist countries and measures and methods
that countries have been using to replace death penalty as well as
their consequences.
(2) Awareness raising and public
consultation through workshops on “Is Death Penalty Still Necessary
in Thailand?” covering all the four regions and Bangkok with 1,073
representatives from all sectors. It aims to raise the awareness on
the advocacy to abolish death penalty and to gather inputs as to
measures and methods that could be use in lieu of the capital
punishment.
(3) Interview with knowledgeable
persons/experts on human rights, laws and justice process / victims
of crimes / persons who used to be sentenced to death and general
public, 27 of them.
(4) Online public consultation through
website of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department on “Public
Consultation on Measures and Methods that Can be Used In lieu of
Death Penalty” including 1,301 persons.
Table: “Should Thailand Abolish or
Retain Death Penalty?”
| Scale of opinion | People receiving information | People not receiving information | |||
Before education
N=787 |
After education
N=644 |
Website
N=1,301 |
|||
| Strongly agree with death penalty | 46.9% | 72.6% | 41.1% | 68.7% | 73.1% |
| Relatively agree with death penalty | 25.7% | 27.3% | 15% | ||
| Note sure | 9.1% | 9.1% | 9.2% | 9.2% | 3% |
| Inclined to have death penalty abolished | 10.2% | 18.3% | 14.3% | 22.1% | 5.1% |
| Strongly inclined to have death penalty abolished | 9.1% | 7.8% | 4% | ||
2.2 The inclusion of death penalty
advocacy in the Third National Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2018)
It aims to make existing domestic laws compatible with international
human rights standards. The advocacy for change of death penalty was
thus includes in the human rights action plan on justice process
stipulating that “change shall be advocated to have the National
Legislative Assembly to convert death penalty to life sentence” and
the activities have been spelled out including;
(1) Raising the
awareness on human rights laws among personnel in the justice process
and general public, particularly on human dignity and the right to
life, which is a fundamental right.
(2) Making an
effort to achieve a moratorium on death penalty immediately and
voicing support for the resolution on moratorium on the death penalty
at the UN General Assembly with intent to eventually abolish death
penalty in its law.
(3) Recommending
the reduction of offences punishable by death penalty including
offences that are not “most serious crimes” per Article 6(2) of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
including arson and terrorism, within 2017.
(4) Acceding to the
Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the
death penalty within 2018.
(5) Building
maximum security prison to accommodate inmates committing most
serious crimes.
To ensure effective implementation of
the Third National Human Rights Action Plan on justice process, the
Ministry of Justice’s Rights and Liberties Protection Department
shall act as the following;
2.2.1 Brainstorm among resource persons
and experts on human rights and laws aiming to review laws that
provide for the use of death penalty on 55 offences (of 63 offences
at present) in the Penal Code and other laws and recommend the
offences for which the use of death penalty can be abolished. A
public seminar on “For Which Criminal Offences, Death Penalty
Should be Abolished” was thus organized on 8 August 2014 at Ebina
House Hotel, Vibhavadi Rangsit, Bangkok with 53 participants. The
results can be summarized as follows;
(1) As to the most
serious crimes, death penalty should still be retained, but rather
than keeping mandatory death penalty, it should be changed to allow
judges to use own discretion in the use of capital punishment.
(2) For certain
offences concerning thief or narcotic drug, death penalty can be
abolished.
(3) The Rights and
Liberties Protection Department should make further effort to explore
general social values and if life has been less valued or not as well
as to clarify why certain overlapping offences carry different
punishments.
(4) There is still
a relatively little understanding about crime in society and
punishment. The fact should be reviewed again when Thailand is about
to move toward changing the death penalty.
(5) There have been
positive international and regional/ASEAN trends toward the abolition
of death penalty and this should be useful for the advocacy for the
abolition of death penalty in Thailand, particularly, the Second
Optional Protocol to ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty.
2.2.2 A public seminar on “The
National Human Rights Action Plan and the Direction of Thailand’s
Justice Process” was organized with an aim to garner more
understanding and raise the awareness about the Third National Human
Rights Action Plan among agencies in the justice process and to
gather inputs from target groups on the issue concerning the
abolition of death penalty. It took place at the Rama Gardens Hotel,
Vibhavadi Rangsit, Bangkok with 131 participants. Most of the
participants still disagree with the abolition of death penalty,
though they supported the implementation of the Action Plan and to
allow judges to use their discretion in sentencing and to reduce the
number of offences punishable by death.
2.2.3 Dissemination of briefing on
“Campaign to change Death Penalty based on International Human
Rights Principles” with an aim to raise the awareness and garner
understanding about the abolition of death penalty. The briefing has
been circulated among agencies in the justice process, libraries of
higher education institutions, and public libraries throughout the
country, about 1,000 venues.
2.3 Review readiness for Thailand to
become a party to the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty, which can be summarized as
follows;
(1) Thailand should first ensure full
obligation of Article 6 of ICCPR, particularly on the exclusive use
of death penalty on the most serious crimes since the UN Human Rights
Committee (HRC) recommended that Thailand’s use of death penalty
for drug-related offences is a breach to ICCPR as drug-related
offences are not considered most serious crimes. Therefore, whether
Thailand should accede to the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR or
not is not more important than Thailand’s compliance with ICCPR on
the exclusive use of death penalty on most serious crimes.
(2) If Thailand is determined to
abolish death penalty, it should set out a strategic plan, clear
operational framework and timeline including
Phase One:
Review and identify criminal offences that are not considered the
most serious crimes according to international law.
Phase Two:
Review the possibility to apply paroling which should be treated as a
government policy and to have it reviewed regularly as well as to
modernize the country’s penitentiary system.
Phase Three:
An amendment should be made to the Penal Code to change maximum
punishment from death to life sentence and there shall be constant
monitoring of its impacts in terms of the number of criminal
incidences, the gravity of the crime and public perception on safety
and security.
Phase Four:
When Thailand is ready, there should be a recommendation for it to
accede to the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty.
2.4 Campaign and seminar and
awareness raising among campaign alliances for the abolition of death
penalty including among state sector, people sector and
international organizations including the delegation of the European
Union in Thailand, the Office of National Human Rights Commission,
Amnesty International, Union for Civil Liberty (UCL), Sukhothai
Thammathirat Open University, etc.
3. Ministry of Justice’s Action
Plan
3.1 In pursuance to the
recommendation by the National Human Rights Commission to the Prime
Minister to make change to laws concerning death penalty: As a
result, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Wissanu Krea-ngam, on behalf
of the PM, has instructed the Ministry of Justice to promptly convene
a meeting among concerned agencies and to produce a report of the
review and implementation per the recommendation which shall then be
submitted to the Secretariat of the Cabinet which shall then submit
it to the cabinet.
The MoJ has then instructed the Office
of the Justice Affairs to review information about the possible
change of death penalty. The Office of the Justice Affairs then
coordinated with the Rights and Liberties Protection Department
regarding the results of the review and implementation. The issue has
then been raised at the meeting of the Subcommittee for the
Development and Enforcement of Law Equally and Fairly no. 2/2559 on 1
March 2016 and the meeting of the Committee for the Development of
National Justice Affairs no. 2/2559 on 7 April 2016. At both
meetings, it was agreed that change to the death penalty shall be
made as follows;
Phase 1 Change from mandatory
death penalty to allow judges to make their discretion as to
sentencing without having to always impose death penalty.
Phase 2 Abolish death penalty
for certain offences, particularly non-fatal offences or offences
that cause no fatality to other persons
Phase 3 Abolish death penalty
for all crimes
The Office of the Justice Affairs’
Committee for the Development of National Justice Affairs has then
proposed a recommendation regarding the reform of laws concerning
death penalty and human rights principles to the cabinet1
and the cabinet made a resolution on 26 July 2016 acknowledging
and endorsing the MoJ’s recommendation already2.
Then, the MoJ’s Permanent Secretary has instructed the Rights and
Liberties Protection Department to accept the recommendation and put
into practice3.
3.2 The Rights and Liberties Protection
Department has convened a meeting between the Rights and Liberties
Protection Department; and the Office of the Justice Affairs on 25
May 2017 at Sawang Kamol meeting room, 3rd floor, the
Rights and Liberties Protection Department aiming to set out
directions and framework of cooperation and to consult on the
possibility to set up a joint-committee to campaign and advocate
change in death penalty. The recommendations accepted for
implementation during the meeting included;
(1) The Rights and
Liberties Protection Department; shall independently proceed to
campaign for change of death penalty based on human rights principles
without having to seek endorsement from the Committee for the
Development of National Justice Affairs before any implementation.
(2) A taskforce to
enable change of death penalty shall be set up per the cabinet
resolution dated 26 July 2016 and the Office of the Justice Affairs
shall be willing to take part in the taskforce.
(3) An action plan
to advocate change in death penalty shall be drawn and include
activities including meetings among agencies responsible for various
laws which can be invoked to impose death penalty to make them
realize the importance of this campaign and to consult with them over
the possibility to make change to certain laws in order to advocate
the in-charge agencies to make legal amendments according to the
guidelines for change of death penalty aforementioned.
(4) Raising the
awareness and engender proper understanding about the campaign for
change of death penalty among public officials and general public
along with an effort to implement an action plan to advocate change
of death penalty per (7).
At present, the Rights and Liberties
Protection Department is forming the taskforce to enable change of
death penalty and developing an action plan for its implementation as
well as is preparing for a review of the possibility to allow judges
to use own discretion regarding sentencing in offences punishable by
mandatory death penalty. Results of the review shall be submitted to
the cabinet later.
4. Positive and negative
developments of the movement for change of death penalty in Thailand
at present
The movement for change of death
penalty in Thailand has elicit both positive impacts that are
favorable to the implementation and negative impacts that need to be
monitored and prompts a need to raise more social awareness. Concrete
examples can be cited as follows;
4.1 Positive developments (1)
Recently, Thailand has made change to the Narcotic Act (Vol. 6) 2017,
which came into force on 16 January 2017. The amendment has
engendered various benefits to the drug-related justice process. For
one thing, it enables judges to use own discretion in sentencing.
Previously for offences related to import and export of narcotic
substances type 1 and its sale shall be liable to mandatory death
penalty. But in the newly amended Act, the punishment shall include
life imprisonment, a fine from one to five million baht or death and
the judges shall be allowed to use own discretion with regard to
sentencing. (2) If Thailand can refrain from implementing the capital
punishment in the next two years (until 2019), it would make a decade
free of execution and we shall be counted as an abolitionist country
(the last execution in Thailand took place in 2009). (3) Death
penalty shall be included as a long-term policy in the Fourth
National Human Rights Action Plan (2019-2023). To raise the awareness
and to reduce offences punishable by death. The Draft Plan is now
open for inputs.
4.2 Negative developments
Previously, the number of offences punishable by death was 55,
but after the promulgation of three new laws in 2015 which imposed
death penalty on eight offences, the number of such offences has
increased to 63 with detail as per the annex. An increase of offences
punishable by death has drawn much criticism from international
community since the death penalty was imposed on offences concerning
economics/property. Such a move was also in breach of the state
policy as indicated in the National Human Rights Action Plan. The new
offences punishable by death have been added by the three following
laws;
(1) The Organic Act on Counter
Corruption B.E 2558 (Vol. 2)
(2) The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
BE 2558 (Vol.2)
1Letter
from the Committee for the Development of National Justice Affairs,
the Office of the Justice Affairs no, YT 0902/808 dated 27 April
2016 concerning ‘Recommendations for the Reform of Laws concerning
Death Penalty and Human Rights Principles’ from the Deputy Prime
Minister (Wissanu Krea-ngam) to the Secretary General of the Cabinet
and a letter from the Ministry of Justice no. YT 0904/710 dated 1
February 2016 on ‘Policy Recommendations and other Recommendations
for the Reform of Laws concerning Death Penalty and Human Rights
Principles’ from the Minister of Justice to the Secretary General
of the Cabinet
2Letter
from the Office of Minister, Ministry of Justice ‘Most Urgent’
no. YT 0101/ W843 dated 26 July 2016 on ‘A Meeting Minutes from
the cabinet meeting no. 29/2559’
3Letter
from the Office of the Justice Affairs no. YT 0904/1932 dated 26
October 2016 on ‘Policy Recommendations and other Recommendations
for the Reform of Laws concerning Death Penalty and Human Rights
Principles’
