The Implementation of the Provisional Release Process

Abstract

The provisional release process allows the accused or defendant to be released from the custody of the official or court for a specified period so that the accused or defendant is not held in custody or detention for longer than necessary during the investigation or trial. It is also a measure to relax the restrictions on the freedom of the accused or defendant to be able to live normally without being confined in a prison without affecting the rights and freedoms of the accused or defendant. Thus, this research article aimed to examine the circumstances, problem situations, and factors affecting the implementation of the provisional release process, which could lead to recommendations for the effective development of Thailand's provisional release process. The study was conducted using a qualitative research method. A total number of 41 key informants, which were selected purposively, were included. They consisted of experts in criminal law and criminal justice, executives and practitioners in criminal justice, and the accused and defendants under investigation. The research instruments included in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and content analysis.

The results showed that the current circumstances and problem situations of Thailand's provisional release process consist of 1) economic disparity of the accused or defendant concerning access to justice, where provisional release is rather linked to collateral; 2) provisional release in the interrogation and trial stages that differs in the problem situations, with provisional release during the trial having a relatively greater magnitude and importance of the problem than in the interrogation; 3) standardization of the provisional release based on the discretion of the judge; 4) provisional release support in the investigation stage that lacks a risk management mechanism or tool; 5) some practitioners who still lack knowledge, understanding as well as skills, especially the attitude towards risk management in provisional release; 6) communication for raising awareness and understanding of the provisional release process among stakeholders, communication for encouraging participation of the public sector, and communication for improving and promoting the performance of the personnel; 7) laws relating to provisional release; 8) risk management in provisional release, especially the use of electronic monitoring (EM) bracelets as part of the provisional release that are still found limited both in terms of quantity and quality, as well as the conditions for using the equipment that must be suitable for specific risks. As for the factors contributing to the implementation of the provisional release process, they included 1) internal and external communication, 2) policy pressure, 3) distribution and allocation of resources, 4) inter-agency integration and coordination, 5) database integration, 6) civic participation, and 7) attitudes of practitioners. The recommendations made included setting up a central body to monitor and control those who are brought to provisional release; setting up a committee to consider cases of detention; adjusting attitudes or perspectives of practitioners; strengthening community-based mechanisms; inter-agency integration; raising awareness of the public and stakeholders, and recognizing the importance of respecting the human rights of the accused and defendants.