Problems of Criminalizing Flag Desecration
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Desecration of national flag is criminalized in order to protect national flag as an official symbol of sovereign nation-state and people who belong to such nation. However, crimes of flag desecration prescribed in article 118 of Thai penal code and article 54 of Flag Act B.E. 2522 have four problems. First, the laws are not in accordance with present social and political context. Second, their wordings are contrary to the principal of legality namely, lex certa. Third, they are overcriminalized and fourth, they disproportionately violate freedom of expression. Comparative study of flag desecration in Republic of India, Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Korea shows that their laws are more consistent with lex certa and principles of criminalization. The purpose of this research is hence to find suitable alterations to crimes of flag desecration in Thailand.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright in this website and the material on this website (including without limitation the text, computer code, artwork, photographs, images, music, audio material, video material and audio-visual material on this website) is owned by Chulalongkorn University Law Journal and its licensors.
1. Chulalongkorn University Law Journal grants to you a worldwide non-exclusive royalty-free revocable license to:
- view this website and the material on this website on a computer or mobile device via a web browser;
- copy and store this website and the material on this website in your web browser cache memory; and
- print pages from this website for your use.
- All articles published by Chulalongkorn University Law Journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited.
2. Chulalongkorn University Law Journal does not grant you any other rights in relation to this website or the material on this website. In other words, all other rights are reserved. For the avoidance of doubt, you must not adapt, edit, change, transform, publish, republish, distribute, redistribute, broadcast, rebroadcast or show or play in public this website or the material on this website (in any form or media) without appropriately and conspicuously citing the original work and source or Chulalongkorn University Law Journal prior written permission.
3. You may request permission to use the copyright materials on this website by writing to journal@law.chula.ac.th.
4. Chulalongkorn University Law Journal takes the protection of its copyright very seriously. If Chulalongkorn University Law Journal discovers that you have used its copyright materials in contravention of the license above, Chulalongkorn University Law Journal may bring legal proceedings against you seeking monetary damages and an injunction to stop you using those materials. You could also be ordered to pay legal costs.
If you become aware of any use of Chulalongkorn University Law Journal's copyright materials that contravenes or may contravene the license above or any material on the website that you believe infringes your or any other person's copyright, please report this by email to journal@law.chula.ac.th.
References
BVerfG, Beschluss vom 15. 9. 2008 – 1 BvR 1565/05. [Online] Available from : https://lexetius.com/2008, 2807. [9 December 2022]
BVerfGE 81, 278, 1 BvR 266/86 and 913/87 (Mar. 7, 1990).
Claus Roxin, Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, Band I: Grundlagen, (München: Beck, 1997)
Constitutional Court of Korea, “Case No. 2012Hun-Ba37 (June 27, 2013)” [Online] Available from : https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Punishment-of-Insult-as-Criminal-Offense-Case.pdf. [2 January 2023]
Constitutional Court of Korea, “Case No. 2012Hun-Ba37 (June 27, 2013)” [Online] Available from : https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Punishment-of-Insult-as-Criminal-Offense-Case.pdf. [2 January 2023]
Criminal Act (Act No. 11731, Apr. 5, 2013)
D.R. Knowles, “A Reformulation of the Harm Principle,” in Political Theory 6, 2 (1978): 233–246.
Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, (Oxford University Press, 2009)
Elina Paunio, “Beyond Predictability – Reflection on Legal Certainty and the Discourse Theory of Law in the EU Order,” in German Law Journal 10, 11 (2009): 1469-1493.
Gabriella Elgenius, Symbols of Nations and Nationalism: Celebrating Nationhood, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)
Jean Decety and Jason M. Cowell, "Our Brains Are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience," [Online] Available from : https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2016.00003. [9 December 2022]
Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others, (Oxford University Press: 1986)
Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 2: Offense to Others, (Oxford University Press, 1988)
Johannes Keiler and Davis Roef, "Principles of Criminalisation and the Limits of Criminal Law," in Comparative Concepts of Criminal Law 3rd Edition, eds. Johannes Keiler and Davis Roef (Intersentia, 2019)
Joxerramon Bengoetxea, “Ultima Ratio and the Judicial Application of Law,” in Oñati Socio-legal Series 3, 1 (2013): 107-124.
Kevin W. Saunders, “The Desecration of National Symbols and Lèse Majesté,” in Free Expression and Democracy a Comparative Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2017)
Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI), “Criminal Act (Act No. 11731, 5 April 2013)” [Online] Available from : https://elaw.klri.re.kr. [2 January 2023]
Krisztina Ficsor, "Certainty and Uncertainty in Criminal Law and the ‘Clarity of Norms’ Doctrine," in Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 59, 3 (2018): 271–289.
Mark L. Rienzi and Stuart Buck, "Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes," in Utah Law Review (2002): 381-471.
Michael A. Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," in Understanding Peace and Conflict through Social Identity Theory: Contemporary Global Perspectives, eds. by Reeshma Haji, Neil Ferguson and Shelley McKeown (Springer, 2016)
Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Law XXIX, (Thomas Nugent trans., 1892)
Nina Peršak, Criminalising Harmful Conduct: The Harm Principle, Its Limits and Continental Counterparts, (Springer, 2007)
Patrick Devlin, "The Enforcement of Morals," [Online] Available from : https://psi329.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Devlin%2C%20The%20Enforcement%20of%20Morals%20%281959%29%281%29.pdf. [9 December 2022]
Piet Hein van Kempen, "Criminal Justice and the Ultima Ratio Principle: Need for Limitation, Exploration and Consideration," in Overuse in the Criminal Justice System: On Criminalization, Prosecution and Imprisonment, eds. Piet Hein van Kempen and M. Jendly (Intersentia, 2019)
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (Act No. 69 of 1971)
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (Act No. 69 of 1971), Explanation 2.
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (Act No. 69 of 1971), Explanation 3.
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (Act No. 69 of 1971), Explanation 4. แปลโดย ชมนัส เหลืองไตรรัตน์. ใน ชมนัส เหลืองไตรรัตน์, วิเคราะห์คำว่า “เหยียดหยาม” ในประมวลกฎหมายอาญา. วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต คณะนิติศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, 2564.
Robert T. Schatz and Howard Lavine, “Waving the Flag: National Symbolism, Social Identity, and Political Engagement,” in Political Psychology 28, 3 (2007): 329-355.
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police v. D.Senthilkumar (2020). [Online] Available from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62732482/. [9 December 2022]
StGB § 11 (3). [Online] Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/. [9 December 2022]
StGB § 90a Verunglimpfung des Staates und seiner Symbole. [Online] Available from : https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__90a.html. [9 December 2022]
Thornhill v. Alabama, 6310 U.S. 88 (1940)
UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, 12 September 2011, CCPR/C/GC/34
Urteil vom 16.11.1959, 3 StR 45/59. [Online] Available from : http://www.juralib.de/entscheidungen/ bgh-3-str-45/59-16.11.1959. [9 December 2022]
Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law 5th Ed, (Thompson Reuters, 2010)
เกียรติขจร วัจนะสวัสดิ์, คำอธิบาย กฎหมายอาญา ภาค 1 เล่ม 1, (กรุงสยาม, 2562)
คณพล จันทน์หอม, หลักพื้นฐานกฎหมายอาญาเล่ม 1, (กรุงเทพมหานคร: วิญญูชน, 2563)
คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2097/2497
คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 588/2509
จิตติ ติงศภัทิย์, คำอธิบายประมวลกฎหมายอาญา ภาค 2 ตอน 1, พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 8 (กรุงเทพมหานคร: จิรรัชการพิมพ์, 2548)
พระราชบัญญัติเครื่องหมายครุฑพ่าห์ พ.ศ. 2534
มาตรา 206 แห่งประมวลกฎหมายอาญา
มาตรา 5 แห่งพระราชบัญญัติธง พ.ศ. 2522
มาตรา 53 แห่งพระราชบัญญัติธง พ.ศ. 2522
หยุด แสงอุทัย, กฎหมายอาญา ภาค 2-3, พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 11 (กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์, 2556)
