The Guideline of Comparative Judgement on Offense of Theft and Incorrect According to Thai Law

Abstract

This research article aims to (1) to examine the doctrinal foundations of theft as prescribed in the Vinaya Pitaka; (2) to analyze Thai legal principles concerning the offense of theft; and (3) to propose a comparative framework for adjudicating theft under the Vinaya Pitaka and Thai criminal law. The study emphasizes doctrinal analysis, elements of the offense, and punitive measures within both religious and secular legal systems. This research employs a qualitative documentary methodology, drawing upon primary sources including the Tipitaka, its commentaries, and scholarly works in Buddhist studies, as well as statutory materials such as the Thai Criminal Code and the Sangha Act. Data were analyzed through content analysis and synthesized using descriptive-analytical methods.

The findings reveal that the case of Venerable Dhaniya, who took royal timber to construct his dwelling, led the Buddha to promulgate the second Parajika rule. This rule stipulates that a monk who steals property valued at more than 5 masakas commits a Parajika offense and is immediately and irrevocably expelled from the monastic order. The offense comprises five essential elements: (1) the property belongs to another; (2) the offender knows that it belongs to another;    (3) the value exceeds the prescribed threshold; (4) there is intention to steal; and (5) the act results in the movement of the property. In contrast, Section 334 of the Thai Criminal Code defines theft as dishonestly taking another person’s property and prescribes penalties of imprisonment and/or fines. Additionally, the Sangha Act provides legal consequences related to the status of monks who have incurred Parajika offenses. The comparative analysis demonstrates that both the Vinaya and Thai law emphasize intentionality and ownership as core elements of theft. However, they differ significantly in their underlying objectives and sanctions: the Vinaya seeks to preserve the moral purity and integrity of the monastic community, whereas criminal law aims to protect property rights and maintain public order. The research synthesizes these findings into the “TT Model,” a conceptual framework for systematically comparing legal principles, adjudicative criteria, and integrative approaches to moral and legal sanctions.