ABOLISHING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR ARSON: PROPORTIONALITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THAI JUSTICE REFORM

Thanyaphat Thongmusit

doi:10.14456/acsr.2026.6

Authors

Thanyaphat THONGMUSIT Faculty of Law, Suratthani Rajabhat University, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14456/acsr.2026.6

Keywords:

Capital Punishment, Arson Offenses, Proportionality Principle, Human Dignity, Criminal Justice Reform

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates the abolition of the death penalty for arson-related property crimes in Thailand, evaluating its alignment with contemporary human rights standards and penal theories. Utilizing documentary analysis and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with fourteen correctional executives and legal experts conducted between January and August 2024, the research examines the legal and empirical realities of capital punishment. The findings reveal that imposing the death penalty for non-lethal arson is disproportionate, violates fundamental human dignity, and lacks substantial empirical evidence of effectively deterring crime when compared to severe custodial sentences. Furthermore, retaining capital punishment for property offenses fundamentally contradicts international human rights instruments, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which restricts execution solely to the most serious crimes involving intentional killing. Consequently, the study strongly recommends abolishing the death penalty for arson, proposing proportionate alternatives such as life imprisonment or a minimum of twenty years of incarceration, coupled with robust preventive measures. This essential reform securely aligns with Section 77 of the Thai Constitution, promoting transparent, evidence-based, rehabilitative, and restorative criminal justice policies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bala, R. (2025). The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent: a critical analysis of its impact on crime rates. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 13(3), 169-177.

Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting In-Depth Interview: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Washington, D.C.: Pathfinder International.

Chokprachakchat, S., Samrejphol, N., & Meeboonsalang, N. (2017). Thai attitudes toward the abolition of death penalty. Journal of Thai Justice System, 10(3), 113-130.

Garland, D. (2021). Punishment and Comparative Political Economy: An Exposition and Critique. In I. Solanke. (ed.). On Crime, Society, and Responsibility in the work of Nicola Lacey (217-246). Oxford: Oxford Academic.

Intarapanya, C., & Klinsuwan, W. (2024). Legal Perspective on the Human Dignity of Deceased Persons. Mae Fah Luang University Law Journal, 7(2), 48-94.

Islam, M. (2024). Global Death Penalty Abolition Trend: A Critical Appraisal of Bangladesh in Context. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16(2), 561-584.

Johnson, D., & Zimring, F. (2019). The Death Penalty's Continued Decline. Current History, 118(811), 316-321.

Labree, W., Nijman, H., van Marle, H., & Rassin, E. (2010). Backgrounds and characteristics of arsonists. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(3), 149-153.

Meeboonsalang, N. (2014). Fundamental principles in criminal justice. Thammasat Journal, 33(3), 49-72.

Moriña, A. (2021). When people matter: The ethics of qualitative research in the health and social sciences. Health & Social Care in the Community, 29(5), 1559-1565.

Muhamad, M., Siong, W., & Kumar, B. (2024). Protection of Factually Innocent as a New Narrative to Abolish the Death Penalty in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law, 25(2), 173-190.

Office of the Narcotics Control Board. (2021). Results of drug suppression nationwide. Bangkok: Ministry of Justice.

Petsiri, P. (2021). Using life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in Thailand. Rangsit Journal of Law and Society, 3(1), 34-47.

Putera, A., Jannah, M., & Nasution, H. (2024). Legal Review of the Death Penalty in the Perspective of Human Rights. SHAUTUNA: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Perbandingan Mazhab, 5(3), 874-888.

Radelet, M., & Borg, M. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43-61.

Renjith, V., Yesodharan, R., Noronha, J., Ladd, E., & George, A. (2021). Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(1), https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_321_19.

Setiodjati, J., & Hamidi, A. (2025). Cancellation of death penalty for narcotics producer in human rights perspective. Indonesian Journal of Law and Justice, 2(3), 1-8.

Syahputra, R., Saragih, Y., & Fauzan. (2024). The problem of implementing the death penalty from the perspective of human rights and criminal law. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, 2(3). 27-33.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Resolution 217 [III] A). United Nations.

United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1999 UNTS 171). United Nations.

Watakakosol, R., Suttiwan, P., Wongcharee, H., Kish, A., & Newcombe, P. (2019). Parent discipline in Thailand: Corporal punishment use and associations with myths and psychological outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 88, 298-306.

Yuttitham, A., Phanphruk, W., Chokmoh, P., & Tiplut, S. (2024). Abolition of the death penalty: case study of the offenses related to setting fire to property. Western University Research Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 10(2), 245-258.