Book Description

In 2008, Thailand raised the age of criminal responsibility from 7 years old to 10 years old. Between the years 2006 to 2008 there were 1,083 children aged between 7 to 12 charged with crimes, and 234 of them were children between the ages of 7 to 10. Attempts to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old were modeled after many of developed countries. Moreover, this change in the law was pushed forward by the needs to follow the suggestion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for the minimum age of children in conflict with the law. Also there are attempts to divert as many cases of children in conflict with law out of the justice system. This research focuses on the consequences of that change. Before the law had changed, children under 10 who committed a criminal act and were arrested would normally be sent within 24 hours to the Juvenile Justice System, Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection (DJOP), Ministry of Justice, where a multidisciplinary team was awaiting them assess their needs and to gather data and prepare reports to present to the Juvenile and Family Court judges who would, based on the information of the reports which would include bio-psycho-social circumstances of the child, make the decisions for the treatment that would be best for the child. During this process, if the child needs special attention for specific intervention, he or she will be referred to resources out side the system. After the law changed, all of the children aged under 10 years who had conflict with the law were processed first by police officers who had to make the decision whether or not to send them to be protected under the National Child Protection Act, for which the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security (MSDHC) is mainly responsible. The data were collected during the years 2008-2009. In order to compare the treatment for the children inside and outside the juvenile justice system, thirty children aged under 12 years old from around the country who were in conflict with the law were the subjects in this study. Among them, 13 were children under 10, and 17 were children aged between 10 to 12 years. Information regarding the details of the crimes, the causes of the crimes, the treatments they received after committing the acts, and their lives after the crime were collected and analyzed. In the children under 10 years old group, the criminal acts reported to the police officers were the following: one accidental murder, three group rapes, two rapes, two sexual assaults of other children, one physical assault, two burglaries, one vehicle accident causing loss of monetary value, and one criminal damage. The children were interviewed and assessed by the DJOP psychologists. The parents of the children, police officers, victims, and the MSDHC personnel were also interviewed. The study showed that it was extremely difficult to find the cases of children under 10 years of age being sent to the office of the MSDHC. This finding was not likely to be the result of a reduction in the number of crimes committed by this group during these years, but rather as a result of the crimes not being reported due to the report mechanism having been changed. Police interview information revealed that many of the police officers did not know what to do in such circumstances, and they would simply send the children home. Only a few police officers had contact with the child protection officers, and even when contacted the child protection officers were not trained to work with these kinds of cases. Using the child protection guideline as a measurement on needs, all of the children had life circumstances that match with one or more child protection law criterion and should have been sent to receive service they need. However, the findings on the effectiveness of the supporting system for the children suggested that none of the children and family received adequate support to help them deal with the situation and to adjust themselves after the event took place. Many children showed signs of depression, adjustment problems, and fit the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after they had committed a criminal act and/or were in the process of being arrested and questioned by the officers. The shelters that can contain the children whom their parent no longer wanted or could not take care of them due to their misconduct were not adequate. The majority of staff felt they did not have sufficient training in skills and knowledge to deal with children in conflict with the law, which they believe to be different from children who need only social support with no history of committing crime. The victims were also reported to be not helped, and changing the law made it hard for them to press charges against the child. In addition, because the law, the rules and regulations were quite new at the time, many of the police officers and related personnel could not perform their tasks appropriately. The unforeseen negative consequences from the good intent occurred in this case due to the attempt to change the age of criminal responsibility without considering the context and the readiness of the supporting systems. This study concluded that the supporting systems should be in place and well established before the age of criminal responsibility is increased to 12 years old. Recommendations to improve the supporting systems are the following: Standard procedure of the rules and regulations on appropriate ways to process the cases of children under the age of criminal responsibility should be created. All of the related personnel including but not limited to police officers, child protection personnel, and other staff should be well informed and trained to work with the children and their families and to provide appropriate treatment, intervention, and prevention programs specifically designed for this group. The guidelines developed should also include the procedures on appropriate treatment for the victims and their families as well since the children who perpetrated the crimes and their families may share the same community with them. In this case, a restorative justice process working at the community level was also suggested as the way to reduce conflict and to help both the victims and the children and their families heal and to create a stronger and better community, which would in turn reduce the number of future young offenders.