Legal Issues Concerning the Authority of the Department of Corrections in Parole Consideration
Keywords:
Parole, Parole Board, Judicial Role in Parole, Corrections ActAbstract
Background and Aims: Since the 2017 Corrections Act, Section 52(7), stipulates that the power to consider parole rests primarily with the executive branch's subcommittee, without any judicial role in reviewing or balancing the decision, despite the original sentencing being a result of court judgments, concerns have arisen regarding the principle of separation of powers, transparency in discretionary power, and public confidence in the justice system. This research aims to 1) study the legal problems concerning the executive branch's power to consider parole; 2) compare the laws and mechanisms for parole in Thailand, Germany, and France; and 3) propose ways to improve Thailand's parole law to create appropriate checks and balances mechanisms.
Research Methodology: This research employs documentary research, studying the 2017 Corrections Act, relevant Thai and foreign laws, as well as books, academic articles, research papers, theses, court judgments, and electronic documents in both Thai and foreign languages. Content analysis was used to compare and synthesize the data.
Results: Thailand's parole system lacks clarity regarding the composition and qualifications of the subcommittee considering parole. This results in the executive branch having broad discretionary power and may open the door to interference or unfair use of discretion. At the same time, Germany and France give the judiciary a significant role in considering parole, with the courts considering information from the correctional and probation agencies. This mechanism enhances transparency and builds confidence in the justice process.
Conclusion: Thailand should amend the 2017 Corrections Act, Section 52(7), by requiring the judiciary or judges to participate as a component of the parole review committee to create checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches, which will help increase fairness, transparency, and public confidence in the Thai justice system and correctional system.
References
นวลจันทร์ ทัศนชัยกุล. (2532). การคุมประพฤติและการพักการลงโทษ. นิติบรรณการ.
ตรวจพบรายการหนังสือในห้องสมุดศาลยุติธรรม
ปฐมาวดี ปัทมโรจน์. (2553). ตัวแบบการพักการลงโทษที่เหมาะสมกับประเทศไทย [วิทยานิพนธ์ปรัชญาดุษฎีบัณฑิต, มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล].
พเยาว์ ศรีแสงทอง. (2554). การลงโทษและการแก้ไขผู้กระทำผิด (Punishment and correction) (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 1). จรัลสนิทวงศ์การพิมพ์.
อัจฉรียา ชูตินันทน์. (2566). อาชญาวิทยาและทัณฑวิทยา (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 5). วิญญูชน.
Federal Ministry of Justice. (2026). Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz – GVG). Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/englisch_gvg.html
Federal Ministry of Justice. (2026). German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB). Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html
France. (n.d.). Code of criminal procedure (Art. 712-6). Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://legislationline.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/France_Code_of_criminal_procedure_EN.pdf
Legislationline. (2023). French Code of criminal procedure (English version). https://legislationline.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/France_Code_of_criminal_procedure_EN.pdf
ThaiPublica. (2567, 18 เมษายน). จาก “นักโทษล้นคุก” ถึงวิกฤติหลักนิติธรรม กับ “ปริญญา เทวานฤมิตรกุล”. https://thaipublica.org/2024/04/rule-of-law-crisis/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal for Developing the Social and Community

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles that are published are copyrighted by the authors of the articles
