COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ROLES: INQUIRY OFFICERS AND PUBLIC PROSECUTORS IN JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA AND INDIA

Abstract

This research article aimed to compare the roles of inquiry officers and public prosecutors in criminal investigations in Japan, South Korea, and India. This study employed documentary research to examine secondary data from reliable sources in both Thai and English. Content analysis was conducted to facilitate a comparative analysis between the three countries.

The research results were found as follows: 1) inquiry officers in the Japanese and Indian criminal justice systems assumed the primary responsibility in the criminal investigation process. In these countries, public prosecutors primarily provided guidance and assistance to the inquiry officers, particularly in evidence collection. Conversely, the South Korean criminal justice system had been predominantly led by public prosecutors, with support from inquiry officers. 2) In the Japanese and Indian criminal justice systems, inquiry officers were obligated to collect evidence  and file criminal case reports to the public prosecutors upon discovering or receiving information about new criminal cases. Japanese public prosecutors possessed the authority to independently and lawfully issue prosecution or non-prosecution orders and conduct investigations. Meanwhile, Indian public prosecutors produced a final report as a prosecution order, subsequently delivered to the court by the inquiry officers for further proceedings. In South Korea, on the contrary, the criminal investigation process began once the inquiry officers apprehended an alleged offender. Accordingly, the inquiry officers conducted investigations and gathered evidence as much as possible. South Korean public prosecutors were also involved in the process from the initial stage, recording testimonies that contributed to an accurate and comprehensive criminal case report before issuing a prosecution or non-prosecution order.