Trends of Using Forensic Evidence for Judge's Consideration of Court in Thailand

Main Article Content

Sarat Luandee
Sarit Suebpongsiri
Choawit Rakangthong


The research used data from 690 cases judged in the supreme court of Thailand between 2003 and 2016 classified into two groups: general factor and factors based on the evidence for the case proceeding. The results of general factors showed that 62.90% of prosecutors and 99.13% of defendants were male. Prosecutors related to defendants as known persons in 66.94% of the cases. Crimes in the cases occurred in similar proportions during the day and night. The results of factors based on the evidence for case-proceedings indicated that prosecutors’ testimonies, the autopsy, and forensic evidence were related to the judgement (P<0.01), with the value of the odds ratio being 29.67, 5.46, and 3.70, respectively. In cases involving forensic evidence in the case proceedings, the court can punish 87.57% of the offenders. However, when factors which could determine the value of the odds ratio were analyzed using logistic regression, the judgement was affected by: testimonies, the report to the police, testimonies related to the prosecutor’s evidence, the autopsy, and forensic evidence (P<0.01). Factors on testimonies corresponding to the prosecutor’s evidence had the highest value of Exp(B) of 23.16. The research showed that the case-proceedings of the supreme court of Thailand used many kinds of evidence for judgement but that cases using forensic evidence resulted in the court decided without any question.

Article Details

Research Articles


Baskin, D. R. and Sommers, I. B. (2010a) Crime show viewing habits and public attitudes toward forensic evidence: The “CSI Effect” revisited. The Justice System Journal 31: 97-113.

Baskin, D. R. and Sommers, I. B. (2010b) The influence of forensic evidence on the case outcomes of homicide incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice 38(6): 1141-1149.

Baskin, D. R. and Sommers, I. B. (2011) Solving residential burglaries in the United States: the impact of forensic evidence on case outcomes. International Journal of Police Science & Management 13: 70-86.

Briody, M. (2004) The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 37(2): 231-253.

Brown, K. M. and Keppel, R. D. (2011) Child Abduction Murder: The Impact of Forensic Evidence on Solvability. Journal of Forensic Science 57: 353-363.

Burrows, J. and Tarling, R. (2004) Measuring the impact of forensic science in detecting burglary and autocrime offences. Scientific and technical 44: 217-222.

Gray-Eurom, K., Seaberg, D. C. and Wears, R. L. (2002) The Prosecution of Sexual Assault Cases: Correlation with Forensic Evidence. Annals of Emergency Medicine 39: 39-46.

Martire, K. A., Kemp, R., Sayle, M. A. and Newell, B. R. (2014) On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International 240: 61-68.

McEwen, T. (2010). The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. Final report to the National Institute of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Research report digest-Issue 2: Washington, D.C.

Parker, B. and Peterson, J. (1972) Physical evidence utilization in the administration of criminal justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Peterson, J. L., Hickman, M. J., Strom, K. J. and Johnson, D. J. (2013) Effect of Forensic Evidence on Criminal Justice Case Processing. Journal of Forensic Science 58(1): 78-90.

Wellford, C. and Cronin, J. (2000) Clearing up homicide clearance rates. National Institute of Justice Journal 1-7.

White, J. H., Lester, D., Gentile, M. and Rosenbleeth, J. (2011) The utilization of forensic science and criminal profiling for capturing serial killers. Forensic Science International 209(1-3): 160-165.