Security Measures under the Thai Criminal Code within a Framework of Buddhist Jurisprudence: A Comparative Study with French, Japanese and Thai Law

Abstract

This research article has the objectives: 1) to examine the legal principles and structure of Security Measures under the criminal codes of the French Republic, Japan, and Thailand;   2) to conduct a functional comparative analysis of Security Measures in the three countries; and 3) to develop a framework of Buddhist jurisprudence grounded in heedfulness (appamāda), compassion (karuṇā), and the middle way (majjhimā paṭipadā) for scrutinising the risk arising from the offender together with the risk arising from the exercise of state power. This qualitative research analyses documents comparatively across legal systems, drawing on principal sources comprising sections 16, 18 and 39–50 of the Thai Criminal Code, the French Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Japanese law on medical care and treatment for persons who have committed serious acts in a state of insanity. The research employs qualitative content analysis together with deductive coding against ten comparative criteria, within the analytical frameworks of doctrinal legal analysis, functional comparison, and normative analysis through Buddhist ethics. The findings are that 1) the three countries have clearly differing legal structures and principles: Thailand prescribes five types of Security Measures in its Criminal Code; France employs socio-judicial supervision (suivi socio-judiciaire) and post-sentence measures; while Japan employs a special statute integrating the courts with psychiatric principles; 2) comparison of the measures must rest on “function” rather than on statutory labels, the intensity of rights safeguards should correspond to the restriction of rights, and treatment and reintegration into society should be a condition of legitimacy; and 3) the framework of appamāda, karuṇā, and majjhimā paṭipadā serves to scrutinise both the risk arising from the offender and that arising from the exercise of state power. The knowledge derived from this research is the Appamāda Model of Legitimate Security Measures (A–K–M Framework), realised by elevating all eight elements into framework provisions and common procedural rules, together with periodic review in which the state bears the burden of proof, comprising individualised risk criteria, multidisciplinary assessment, the right to contest, graduated restriction of rights, periodic review, clear termination criteria, the right to treatment and reintegration into society, and independent outcome evaluation, in order to prevent reoffending alongside the protection of liberty and human dignity.