Abstract

The purposes of this research were 1) to study the determination of penalty rates under the criminal code, 2) to study the determination of punishment in the Dhammavinaya, 3) to analyze and compare the determination of penalty rates between the criminal code and the Dhammavinaya, and 4) to propose guidelines for solving legal problems according to the criminal code. A documentary research method was conducted and the data were analyzed by content analysis and comparative method. Results were shown that 1) the determination of penalty rate under the criminal code is a punishment for offenders who are criminal cases, with both penalties aimed at life and liberty of individuals and penalties aimed at enforcing property according to the criminal code in section 18. There are 5 penalties for offenders in order of severity of the offence which were death, imprisonment, confinement, fine, and forfeiture of property whereas the death penalty is a punishment imposed upon the liberty of the offender and is the most severe punishment followed by imprisonment, which is a type of punishment, bringing the prisoner to the prison as specified within the period of judgment of the court. The next penalty is detention, which is taken to detain or detain in a place other than prison which restricts the rights and liberties of the prisoners. Subsequently, the fine is a punishment aimed at the offender’s property by requiring the offender to pay the amount specified in the judgment, and confiscation of property is the forfeiture of that property to the state. The assets forfeited by the court’s judgment shall belong to the state. 2) The determination of punishment in the Dhammavinaya, a monk who violates the precepts is called “criminal offense” divided into Garukāpatti, which means a serious offense, and is an offense that is severely punishable. Lahukāpatti means a slightly offense which does not have a serious offense as Garukāpatti, which includes both uncorrectable offenses called “Atekitcchā” and the type of offense that can be corrected is called “Satekicchā”. The penalty for violating the Vinaya has 3 types: severe punishment causing a monk to lose his status as a monk, medium punishment causes a monk to live in karma by conducting some kind of conduct to torture oneself, and slightly offense by the monks must punish him lightly in the presence of the monks and together to be released. There are seven groups of offenses: 1) Pārājika, 2) Saṅghādisesa, 3) Pācittiya, 4) Pātidesanīya, 5) Thullaccaya, 6) Dukkaṭa, and 7) Dupbhāsita. 3) Results of the comparison of the determination of penalty rate between the criminal code and the Dhammavinaya found that the highest order of determine punishment in criminal code is death penalty equivalent to Pārājika in the Dhammavinaya in the type of Garukāpatti (heavy offense) of Atekitcchā type which is considered a heavy punishment. For the determination of penalty rates under the criminal code, in the second order, imprisonment is equivalent to a fine for an offense in the Dhammavinaya namely, Saṅghādisesa, which is a guard offense. Satekicchā type, which is considered a moderate penalty (middle offense). For determining the next penalty according to the criminal code, namely confinement, fine, and forfeiture of property, it is equivalent to the determine punishment in the Dhammavinaya that is a light penalty (light offense) consisted of 5 types which are Thullaccaya, Pācittiya, Pātidesanīya, Dukkaṭa, Dupbhāsita, all are Lahukāpatti that should propose the offense in order to be released from the offense. 4) Guidelines for solving legal problems according to the criminal code from the results of this study proposed that Thailand still needs the death penalty because it is the most severe punishment, even though it is a violation of basic human rights. In addition, this research has trend to propose the process of changing punishment in some cases if it possible. It is proposed to consider not having a confinement penalty as it is only an additional punishment and a replacement punishment from other punishments. However, it is also proposed that imprisonment be imposed to make people afraid of committing offenses against others including proposing that the penalty of fines and forfeiture of property be enforced against the offender’s property to make the offenders aware and afraid of the wrongdoing due to the imposition of this penalty.