The Problem of Determining a Minimum Term and Individualized Consideration of General Royal Pardons : A Study of Cases with Final Judgments Imposing the Death Penalty or Life Imprisonment

Abstract

General Royal Pardons in Thailand for Cases with Final Judgments Imposing the Death Penalty or Life Imprisonment: Problems Concerning the Determination of Minimum Terms and Individualized Consideration

In Thailand, the granting of general royal pardons in cases where the courts have rendered final judgments imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment still presents significant problems regarding the absence of measures for determining a minimum term of imprisonment and conducting individual consideration of pardon. As a result, the actual period of punishment served often does not correspond to the sentence imposed by the courts, which may lead to recidivism and pose risks to public safety.

A comparative study of legal frameworks in other jurisdictions, such as the French Republic and the State of California, United States of America, reveals that a minimum period of incarceration is prescribed before conditional release can be considered. These systems establish clear criteria requiring prisoners to serve a minimum portion of their sentence, and they also employ specialized parole boards to evaluate each case individually. Such mechanisms aim to assess the offender’s remorse, rehabilitation, and readiness for reintegration into society, while simultaneously safeguarding public safety. These approaches are consistent with the principal theories of punishment, namely retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

If Thailand were to adopt both of these measures, the enforcement of punishment could better reflect the seriousness of judicial sentences and enhance the rehabilitative prospects of offenders. Therefore, legal reform is required, specifically as follows:

First, a statutory minimum period of imprisonment should be established for cases where final judgments impose the death penalty or life imprisonment, ensuring that convicted persons serve a sentence proportionate to the gravity of their crimes and undergo genuine rehabilitation prior to eligibility for royal pardon. Such provisions should be codified in the Corrections Act.

Second, an individualized consideration board should be established, composed of representatives from the Department of Corrections, members of the judiciary, psychologists or psychiatrists, social workers, and victims or their families. This board would ensure that decisions on release adequately consider the judicial sentence, the offender’s rehabilitation, and, importantly, the perspectives and psychological conditions of victims.

Accordingly, the purpose of this research is to examine the problems concerning the determination of minimum terms and pre-consideration in granting general royal pardons for cases with final judgments imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment, to analyze comparative legal approaches, and to propose suitable legal reforms. These measures would enable the institution of royal pardons to fulfill its objectives more effectively.