ปัญหาและอุปสรรคการใช้อำนาจดุลพินิจของพนักงานสอบสวนในการรวบรวมพยานหลักฐาน

Main Article Content

พิสิฏฐ์ สีกากี

Abstract

This thesis aimed to analyze the problems and obstacles in the enforcement of the Criminal Procedure Code, concerning the exercise of the discretion and authority of the inquiry officer to gather evidence. It also aims find ways to rectify this law and make it more effective and consistent with the international principles. The results of the study revealed that;


  1. The problems of using the authority of discretion and authority of the investigating officers in performing their duties under the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, 1) In case of a problem under Section 131, the investigating officer shall gather all types of evidence as much as possible in order to get the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged offense. This creates a wide gap for the investigators to use the power of discretion to prove the offenses of innocence or accuse them for their wrong doings. This is the main cause of the accused's and the victim's failure to receive justice. 2) Problems of investigating blood sample, skin tissue, hairs, saliva, urine, feces, secretions, genetic material or body components from the victim or person involved. The investigating officers shall have the authority to order the physician or specialist to carry out such inspection as mentioned. However, it must be done only as necessary and appropriate. This provides investigators the power of discretion to consider all the evidences in order to prove the offenses of innocence or guilty. In this case, it causes the accused or the victim failure to receive justice. 3) In case the accused or the victim does not give consent under no reasonable grounds or the accused person has prevented the person concerned from giving consent without reasonable ground. It is presumed that the facts are based on the test results. If the test result is proven to have an adverse affect on the accused or the victim, as the case may be, as the result of the discretion of the investigating officer for their consideration of the reasonable causes. In the case of the accused or the victim does not give consent, it will result in the unjust treatment. From all of the above-mentioned issues, there is a barrier to the investigation and collection of evidences. This does not comply with international law.

  2. The researcher suggests that the Criminal Procedure Code should be amended as follows: 1) Amend the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, Section 2 (6) by adding the word "prosecutor" in this Code. Section 2(6) "investigating officer" means a public official and a "prosecutor" who the law has given authority and duty to investigate. 2) Should amend the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, Section 131/1, by eliminating the words "just as necessary or appropriate". And 3) Should amend the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, Section 131/1, by eliminating the word "justifiable".

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
บทความวิจัย (Research Articles)