Public Prosecutor’s Discretion in the Non-Criminal Prosecution Orderings which are not Public Interests : A Case Study of Public Assembly.

Abstract

The purposes of this study were 1. To study the prosecutor's discretion in order not to prosecute criminal cases that will not benefit the public. In the case of public gatherings and 2. To study problems and propose guidelines for setting criteria The order not to prosecute prosecutors who would not benefit the public in the case of public assembly is clear, appropriate and effective. It is a qualitative research with research studies from documents. Then the data were analyzed in a content analysis.The research findings were as follows: 1) The public prosecutor is independent in making an order with his discretion, whether it is an order to sue or not to sue. Without any external influence to coerce Therefore, it is necessary to have a guarantee for the use of the prosecutor's discretion. By giving independence to the prosecutor Both the prosecutor must exercise fair judgment in prosecution and not be dominated under any influence. If the public prosecutor has exercised his discretion to adjust the law according to the facts as it appears without intention of dishonest or exploitation for himself or herself, or the parties shall be protected by law, and 2) There are several problems encountered as follows: 2.1) Problems in consideration that Any public assembly that is beneficial to the public or in which case is not in the interest of the public 2.2) Problem of ordering criminal cases that will not benefit the public It is the power of the Attorney General to issue orders to delay the prosecution of criminal orders that will not benefit the public. And 2.4) problems in exercising the rights of the people in public assembly, how the people have the right to freedom of assembly. What are the criteria and scope, and how much does the law provide for the right to freedom of public assembly.