Page 97 - 111111

¥ÿ≈æ“À

Inexplicably, the Evaluation Report did not attempt to quantify the

total reduction in money bail required to be put up by arrestees under the
EM bail program, or compare bail volume between the EM and regular bail

systems. Such figures would seem to be essential in drawing conclusions

about the potential impact of EM bail if implemented through Thailandûs
criminal courts.

In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of EM in providing a fairer,

less costly alternative to money bail while not yielding unacceptably higher

rates of absconding, the evaluation team also measured level of satisfaction

with the service by 446 users (accused) and 225 court officers in 91 of the

164 courts that participated. Unlike similar evaluations in England and Wales
(Airs J. et al, 2000:46), the Thai evaluation team did not gauge the opinion

of people who lived in communities where the accused were released on EM.

The fact that data collection was done in June and July, about 5 months
before the end of evaluation period, added another methodological flaw.

Limitations aside, however, the report depicted the average accused imposed

with EM as bail condition as male, age 21-30, single, employed, no college

degree, and a monthly income of less than fl10,000 ($315 USD). On the one

hand, the data show that the poor may well have benefited most from the
projectfiwithout the free EM alternative, these income levels would have

made standard money bail and associated fees prohibitively costly. On the

other hand, wealthy individuals accused of crimes who could easily post
money bail were thereby exempted from the inconvenience and discomfort of

EM bail and its attendant restrictions on where and when one could come

and go. The evaluation team found an extremely high level of satisfaction

from the accused on the convenience of EM, the time needed for the process,

86 86 ‡≈à¡∑’Ë Ú ªï∑’Ë ˆˆ
86 86 86