Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are doing kind of, every now and again I like to do a little exercise in Comparative Law, comparing sort of, I come from an American Common Law background; my Doctorate Degree is in jurisprudence specifically from an American Common Law perspective. I did undertake certain Comparative Law when I was going through law school and also in my undergrad for Political Science I kind of kind of delved into that as well. But over the course of my career I do a lot of it, just on a daily basis. I sort of look at the Thai system through the prism of an American Attorney who is versed in American Common Law traditions. One of the things that - I've said this before and I will say it again, a lot of foreigners make presumptions on how the law works here in Thailand. One of the things people don't really understand or sort of take into account is for example Thailand doesn't use juries. Jury trial is very much a feature of Common Law, in fact it's arguably one of its major features and there are those who would also argue it is one of its major benefits in the Common Law being judged by "a jury of your peers". Here in Thailand they don't do that. They adjudicate things judicially and that is just the way that it works; it's just different. It is not good or bad, it's just different. 

As we have discussed in other videos, and I will make another one contemporaneously with this one, Thailand does not use stare decisis; they don't use precedent either. But I think that's worth noting because, it is very much worth noting, again nobody should be coming to Thailand thinking of engaging in crime but you probably should have at the back of your mind that yes this legal system is vastly different from what you are used to dealing with in a common law context and the lack of a jury trial, that's a whole component of legal process, due process if you will that just doesn't exist in this legal system and you kind of have to deal with that accordingly.