An academic has backed the Office of the Attorney-General's (OAG) new guidelines on drunk driving cases, which enable courts to confiscate an offender's vehicle to deter future offences.
The dean of Thammasat University's Faculty of Law, Pokpong Srisanit, welcomed the guidelines, saying drunk driving cases reflect a clear disregard for the safety and well-being of others, which could be grounds for asset forfeiture.
In criminal law, confiscation of assets can be justified if clear intent is evident, he said.
An individual who is aware they are over the legal alcohol limit and still chooses to drive has a clear intention to break the law, as such, their vehicles are eligible for seizure.
"I agree with the court potentially ordering the confiscation of vehicles from drunk drivers because seizure can prevent future offences," Mr Pokpong said.
However, the measure should only be ordered if it is proportional to the crime committed. In France, for instance, seizure of vehicle is reserved for repeat offenders. It can also be ordered in incidents which resulted in death or severe injuries, he said.
While he backed the OAG's guidelines, Mr Pokpong said the measure will lose its deterrent effect if it isn't consistently enforced as a result of corruption.
"The key is not heavier penalties but consistent and strict enforcement," he said,
Mr Pokpong added that mandating police to wear cameras at checkpoints would foster transparency.
In cases where borrowed vehicles are involved, owners who are unaware that their vehicles were used by a drunk driver can reclaim their vehicle, but those who knowingly lent their vehicle to an intoxicated driver shouldn't be allowed to do so, he said.
Deputy government spokesman Karom Phonpornklang said the guidelines instruct prosecutors to consider pursuing the charge of reckless driving without regard for others' safety, as outlined under Section 43 of the Land Traffic Act, in drunk driving cases.
Pokpong Srisanit