The Ministry of Justice should have been praised for its policy for pardoning prisoners. Yet the way it has managed the pardon system only invites more questions which have backfired on the noble policy.
The ministry was in trouble on Tuesday after the remission given to Polkrit Wiset, a convict who received a 33-year jail term, after the mother of his victim objected to the pardon process.
His 2017 trial drew public attention. Polkrit, a former army sergeant, was arrested for strangling his girlfriend to death and burning the body to destroy the evidence. The Criminal Court in 2017 handed him a 33-year, 11-month term.
But Polkrit, who has already served four years in prison, has received substantial jail term reductions and would have been on his way to early release.
Bang Kwang prison had proposed him for early parole. The convict has been classified as a prime-grade prisoner and made a prison's ward assistant. After his first year in jail, his term was reduced from 33 years 11 months down to nine years.
His dreams of walking home free were thwarted on Thursday after the Department of Probation received an objection from Patcharee Punthong, the mother of the victim. She said the family feared for their safety, and the convict has yet to pay compensation as the court ordered.
She also called for a probe of the Department of Corrections's director-general and Bang Kwang's Prison chief for granting his jail term reductions.
This case raises big questions about the way the ministry manages its pardon system.
PM Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha in December last year ordered a probe into how Justice Minister Somsak Thepsuthin and the Department of Corrections manage the pardon policy related to high-profile prisoners under the notorious rice-pledging scheme.
That investigation started after the ministry last December secured a royal pardon for those convicted in the rice-pledging scheme hatched by the Yingluck Shinawatra administration. This corruption costs taxpayers 500 billion baht.
Among those who saw their sentences substantially reduced were former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who had his 48-year sentence slashed to 10 years and eight months; and his deputy Poom Sarapol, who will now serve a five-year jail sentence, instead of the original 36 years.
The investigation wrapped up in January. The ministry did not elaborate on the outcome. It simply ordered another internal probe team "to find a way to improve the pardon system".
The pardon system is good policy because it helps the state cope with serious overcrowding in state prisons and provides reformed prisoners with a second chance. But it does not mean the ministry and Department of Corrections can enjoy carte blanche to run the pardon system any way they see fit without showing any accountability to society.
While the pardon system and other reform programmes such as job training have given many prisoners a new life, the rise of recidivism which is a symptom of early releases threatens public safety and gives reformed prisoners a bad image.
The most criticised is the case of Somkid Poompuang -- a serial rapist who was jailed and pardoned, only to kill again in 2019 after he was released on parole.
It is about time the ministry gave the pardon system a major reform to make sure it stays free from nepotism and corruption. Above all, the pardon system must ensure that only reformed prisoners can walk out of prison.
Criteria for jail term reductions are based on how long the prisoners have to serve, not severity of the crime. The ministry does not have psychologists or criminologists to evaluate examine whether a prisoner is fit to walk free. Parole decisions are handled by each prison, and approved by the Department of Corrections.
Last month, MPs from the Democrat Party proposed bills to revise the Corrections Act 2017. The bills will give clear rules about which crimes are pardonable and frameworks on how to reduce jail terms.
Instead of giving the task to the Department of Correction, the bill will have a special committee to supervise pardons works and will have final approval. In addition, the Supreme court will be asked to decide parole requests from prisoners who were sentenced by that court.
The proposal is worth a look. Hopefully, parliament will read the proposed bill sooner or later. Without major reform, the pardon system, functioning as it is, will only lead to more problems. What we will see is society demoralised and good prisoners suffering from a bad image, while incorrigible criminals walk free.
