Page 100 - 111111

¥ÿ≈æ“À

elsewhere in the report showed that the majority of the accused had only a

monthly income of fl10,000 or fl120,000 annually, or a bit over half the
national average. Allowing the accused to stay outside prison before and

during trial and continue their jobs undoubtedly benefitted the economy of the

country, but not to the degree claimed by the evaluators.

Without referring to any evidence in particular, the writers of the
report claimed that the project had a positive impact for Thai society as it

reduced inequality in the bail system and helped the poor having more access

to justice. Itûs a reasonable conclusion, but thereûs no proof yet.

In addition to the statistics and satisfaction scores, the report

discussed findings from interviews with two deputy chief judges of the

Bangkok Criminal court, two chief judges of provincial courts, four court
officers, four accused, three judges, three members of the general public, and

two directors of the administrative offices of the courts. The interviewers

asked participants their opinions on various aspects of the project, and
especially on the main issue of evaluation, whether an accused should be

responsible for the cost of EM. Leaving aside the problem of small sample

size, the interviews did provide useful feedback. Participating judges thought

EM made them more likely to grant bail in borderline cases, as they knew

that any violation of the condition or tampering with the devices could be
detected and would be punished. They felt that indigent accused benefitted

from the project. However, they too complained about size and durability of

the equipment, and the lack of a clear protocol for combining EM with money
bail conditions. Court officers and members of the public who participated

in the interview also had a positive attitude toward the project. Members of

the public believed that EM can reduce inequality in the bail system. One

情¿“§¡ - ‘ßÀ“§¡ ÚıˆÚ 89 89 89 89 89