CRIMINAL LAW IN THAILAND Part 66: Crime prevention II

D

Dave The Dude

Guest
CRIMINAL LAW IN THAILAND Part 66: Crime prevention II






Last week, we began a discussion of what a private citizen may do to stop a crime that's being committed. We said that there are four requirements that must be satisfied to enable a private citizen _ Thai or foreign _ to intervene and stop a crime.
327037.jpg

The first is that the activity you seek to stop must be violence "tortious to the law". As discussed last week this means it must be an offence against life, body, liberty, reputation or property.
For example, you are in a restaurant with three friends. A tough-looking man walks in and tells the owner, a frail-looking elderly lady, that if she doesn't give him 10,000 baht, he'll break her leg right now.
Could you and your friends grab the guy and push him out the door? Yes, because the activity he's threatened is a threat to the bodily health of the owner.
The second requirement, however, is that the danger must be imminent.
What if, in the example above, the man says that if the lady doesn't give him money, he will hurt her daughter when he sees her next week. This is certainly a crime. It's called blackmail or extortion. But the danger isn't immediate. You could report this to the police, but you can't intervene.
The third requirement is that the intervention must be something that avoids the effect of the crime. For example, let's say you're in a bar and a group of drunks walks in. One of them threatens to beat up the bartender. You shove one of the other drunks out the door. This wouldn't meet the third requirement because what you did would not tend to avoid the effect of the crime. To avoid the effect of the crime, you would have to shove the drunk who threatened the bartender out the door.
The fourth requirement is that the methods you apply to prevent crime must be reasonable under the circumstances. To meet this requirement it must be conducted in a way that applies the least grievous harm possible and is in proportion to the danger that might be caused by the crime.
Thus, stabbing and killing someone you encounter shoplifting at a supermarket wouldn't be appropriate. Much less grievous harm could be used and still prevent the crime. You could, for example, call out for a security guard or even grab the shoplifter and hold him until he gave up the item he was trying to steal. Doing so would apply less grievous harm than stabbing and would thus be the way to go.
There is another issue to consider in connection with the last requirement. Let's say you again saw someone shoplifting canned meats in a supermarket and this person looked like a gangster to you. He noticed you watching and turned on you. You were terrified, took out a knife and stabbed him in the heart, killing him.
In such a case you may be held liable under Section 69 of the Thai Criminal Code for applying too much grievous harm or for applying force that isn't in proportion to the danger. In this case, you could be held criminally responsible for the killing of the person who looked like a gangster. But Section 69 also allows the court to look at the circumstances. If you were truly in fear for your life, for example, the court would be empowered to exonerate you completely despite the fact that you overreacted.
Under Thai law, incidentally, you can use deadly force to prevent a really dangerous crime, but not a non-deadly one such as shoplifting.
For example, if you came upon somebody preparing to shoot another person, you could shoot this person to stop the crime. We mention this because in some countries, citizens are never allowed to use deadly force to prevent a crime.
Above we've discussed the rules relating to crime prevention if you decide to intervene. But are you required to stop a crime committed in your presence?
Generally, Thai law doesn't require private parties to prevent crimes against unrelated third parties. But here's one related thing you should know. Section 374 of the code does require that if a person is in some fatal danger and you can help him or her without danger to yourself, you must do so. If you don't you're exposed to a small fine and up to a month in prison.
What's an example of this? You are sitting by a hotel pool at night. No one else is there. The owner's toddler appears and stumbles into the pool at the deep end and sinks to the bottom. You would be required to call someone or pull the child out. If you didn't, you'd be exposed the penalties under Section 374.
Here's another example, in a criminal context. You are the sole witness to a robbery, in which the victim is stabbed and is bleeding profusely on the ground and will obviously die if she doesn't get help. You wouldn't be required to try to stop the crime while its in progress because this would put you in peril. Under Section 374 you would, however, be required to call for help to assist the injured person once the robber had fled.
 
Back
Top