Evolution of Property Offences Committed Against Low-Value Properties

Abstract

Property offences are prevalent in Thailand, but the characteristics of the commission and the harm inflicted on society differ, particularly between offences committed against low-value properties and those involving high-value or large-scale properties. The latter category causes significant harm, and the perpetrators often have different motives or intended objects. However, it has been observed that Thailand’s Penal Code does not specifically differentiate between offences committed against low-value properties, resulting in perpetrators who commit such offences, which are not considered serious crimes, being subjected to the same punishment as those who commit offences against other types of property. This practice does not adhere to the principle of proportionality.

The study findings regarding offences committed against low-value properties in Thai law, Roman Empire law, Indian law, English law, and Chinese law, spanning from the past to the present, suggest that legislation of these offences should be applied to the offence of theft. The reason is that the pattern of committing theft is relatively straightforward, lacking elements of force or deception that would imply the perpetrator’s mens rea (criminal intent). To ensure clear enforcement, legislators must establish precise criteria for determining what constitutes “low-value” property. The mitigating factor related to commission against one’s will or due to unbearable poverty should also be eliminated as it leads to interpretation issues and contradicts the historical development of offences committed against low-value properties, as this factor has not been present in such offences. During the legislative process for offences committed against low-value properties, legislators should consider all relevant factors, including proportionality and concepts from criminology.