DEVELOPING THE JURIDICAL METHOD OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES IN APPLYING DIVERSIONARY MEASURES UNDER SECTION 132: A NEUROLAW APPROACH TO OBJECTIVE DIAGNOSIS (A CASE STUDY OF SUPREME COURT DECISION NO. 1688/2568)

Abstract

This research article has three objectives: 1) To examine the legal conceptual framework of diversionary measures under Section 132 of the Juvenile and Family Court and Procedure Act, B.E. 2553 (2010), the Supreme Court President’s Regulation B.E. 2556 (2013), and the juridical method in Supreme Court Decision No. 1688/2568; 2) To analyze the proportionality between the cause of the offense diagnosed by the Supreme Court and the measures imposed, under Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Development Theory and Executive Function (EF); 3) To propose a “Developmentally Informed Juridical Method” grounded in the Objective Diagnostic Approach. The study found: 1) The legal conceptual framework of Section 132 rests on four philosophies (Welfare Model, Parens Patriae, Restorative Justice, and Diversion Principle) but lacks developmental-stage indicators and the epigenetic principle; the Supreme Court held that “other places” under Section 132, paragraph two, did not include training centres, aligning with the diversion principle. 2) The diagnosis that the defendant acted out of curiosity and ignorance about sex constituted a subjective-moralistic, not objective-scientific, diagnosis, and the imposed measures (reporting, prohibitions on narcotics and alcohol) failed to address the cause the court itself identified. and 3) The author proposes a “Developmentally Informed Juridical Method” integrating Erikson’s theory and EF as objective diagnostic instruments, opening Neurolaw in Thai juvenile courts-by shifting the paradigm toward objective diagnosis analogous to a physician’s medical diagnosis based on pathology, enabling measures to correctly address the cause on empirical grounds, in accordance with “a correct diagnosis leads to a correct treatment.”