Legal problems related to justice fund management according to the justice fund act B.E. 2558 (2015)

Main Article Content

มยุรี จำจรัส
จิรศักดิ์ รอดจันทร์

Abstract

            This research aims to study the legal problems concerning justice funds management according to the Justice Fund Act B.E. 2558 (2015) in terms of the provision of assistance for the public about the Justice Fund Management Laws, solutions to the problems relating to the access to legal aid in justice systems under the Justice Fund Act B.E. 2558 (2015). The data were collected from documentary research and in-depth interviews with experts from relevant agencies associated with justice funds management. According to the study, it was found that legislation on legal aid for the public under the Justice Fund Act B.E. 2558 (2015) had a problem on the interpretation and enforcement of the law. If the Justice Fund Act B.E. 2558 (2015) were amended, it would be able to provide legal aid for the public to get access to justice and justice procedures in accordance with the intention of the funding for public assistance in litigation, temporary releases for the offender or defendant, human rights abuses, and support for legal education for the public and amendments to some legal provisions under the Justice Fund Act B.E. 2558 (2015) which are incomplete and unclear. Funds management structure should be formulated as a non-profit public service organization under the supervision of the Minister of Justice. It shall be managed by the Justice Fund Committee, where there are the central organization and provincial organizations for agility and rapid assistance for the public regarding service provision. The management must be independent, clear, inspected and evaluated within the organization in order to be transparent and for the high performance of justice funds management that complies with the standardized manner. The author has proposed to amend the Justice Fund Act B.E. 2558 (2015) as follows: Add the term of prosecution which means the process of justice in all stages from before the prosecution until after the case is finished. The donors can use financial donation to deduct their taxes under the Revenue Code on Exemption of Taxes, raising the Funds Capital for the Justice Funds for no less than ten percent of the specific money that shall be delivered to the Treasury with the approval of the Ministry of Finance. The purpose of justice funds is to assist people in both inside and outside the country, including the assistance provided to the foreigners who come to the Kingdom of Thailand. It is determined that employees of the Justice Funds shall be the officers under the Criminal Code. It is suggested to provide additional consideration on temporary releasing of the offender or defendant regarding the criteria for the consideration of statuses of the person applying for the assistance from the Funds. Also, the cancellation of the criteria for the consideration of helping the human rights abused person is proposed. It is determined that there shall be additional guarantors for the offender or defendant that can be any person or any securities to be secured. The provision of assistance for those affected by the judicial process and additional remedy for damages, which is the compensation for detainees, and the exception for medical expenses, are recommended. It is specified that there should be appeals to the disapproval order for the assistance from the Justice Funds.

Article Details

How to Cite
จำจรัส ม., & รอดจันทร์ จ. (2019). Legal problems related to justice fund management according to the justice fund act B.E. 2558 (2015). Journal of Criminology and Forensic Science, 5(1), 39–53. retrieved from https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/forensic/article/view/157892
Section
Research Articles

References

1. จิรศักดิ์ รอดจันทร์. (2556). ภาษีเงินได้บุคคลธรรมดา หลักการและบทวิเคราะห์. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 2) กรุงเทพมหานคร: จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.

2. บุญศรี มีวงศ์อุโฆษ. (2557). กฎหมายรัฐธรรมนูญ. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 2). กรุงเทพมหานคร: เดือนตุลา.

3. ปกป้อง ศรีสนิท. (2555). การปฏิรูปกองทุนยุติธรรม. กรุงเทพมหานคร: เป็นไท.

4. พัลลภ ศักดิ์โสภณกุล. (2547) วิวัฒนาการกฎหมายวิธีการงบประมาณและการปฏิรูประบบงบประมาณของประเทศไทย. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 1). กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักพิมพ์วัฒนาพานิช จำกัด.

5. วิชิต แย้มยิ้ม. (2560). แนวทางการพัฒนาการบริหารจัดการกองทุนยุติธรรมสำหรับประเทศไทย.วารสารวิชาการอาชญาวิทยาและนิติวิทยาศาสตร์ โรงเรียนนายร้อยตำรวจ. 3(1), 60-72.

6. อภิรดี โพธิ์พร้อม และคณะ. (2550). ปัญหาความไม่เสมอภาคในกระบวนการยุติธรรมที่ประชาชนได้รับ. รายงานวิจัยฉบับสมบูรณ์. สำนักงานศาลยุติธรรม.

7. Breton, Albert. (1947). The Economic Theory of Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

8. DC. UNODC. (2018) Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems in Africa. Retrieved December 30, 2018, from https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Survey_Report_on_Access_
to_Legal_Aid_in_Africa.pdf

9. Lindhal, W.E. (1992). Strategic Planning for Fund Raising: How to Bring in More Money Using Strategic Allocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

10. Mc Carthy, John D. and Zald, Myer N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology. 82(6), 1212 – 1241.

11. Schick, Allen. (2004). Twenty-five years of budgeting reform, OECD Journal on Budgeting. 4(1), 81-102.

12. Shah A. (2007). Overview in Budgeting and budgetary institutions. World Bank: Washington.

13. World Justice Project. (2018) The WJP Rule of Law Index 2017–2018 Report. Retrieved June 30, from https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-ROLI-2018-June-Online-Edition_0.pdf