การศึกษาเปรียบเทียบพระวินัยบัญญัติในปาราชิกสิกขาบทที่ ๒ กับความผิดเกี่ยวกับทรัพย์ตามที่บัญญัติไว้ในลักษณะ ๑๒ แห่งประมวลกฎหมายอาญา

The research paper consisted of the following objectives: 1) to study the concepts and theories about the disciplinary rules in the second major offences (Pārājika); 2) to investigate the legal measures on property offenses as provided in Title 12 of the criminal code, with the goal of amending the Supreme Sangha Council rules; and 3) to analyze and compare the second major offences (Pārājika) and offenses relating to property in Title 12 of the criminal code. 

          From the study, it has been discovered that according to the rules of the Supreme Sangha Council No. 11 (B.E. 2421), those with the authority to punish monks who commit the second major offences (Pārājika) are as follows: 1) Offending monks who are not in charge of governing the Sangha will be adjudicated by the abbot or the Sangha Subdistrict Head; 2) Offending monks who serve as assistants to the abbot or vide-abbot will be adjudicated by the abbot or Sangha Subdistrict Head; 3) Offending monks who are the abbots or vice-abbots will be adjudicated by Sangha Subdistrict Head; 4) Offending monks who are the Sangha Subdistrict Heads will be adjudicated by Sangha District Heads; 5) Offending monks who are the Sangha District Heads or Sangha Provincial Vice-Heads will be adjudicated by Sangha Provincial Heads; 6) Offending monks who are the Sangha Provincial Heads will be adjudicated by Sangha Regional Heads; 7) Offending monks who are the Sangha Regional Heads will be adjudicated by Sangha Chief Governors of the region they live in; and lately, 8) Offending monks who are the Sangha Chief Governors or the Supreme Sangha Council members will be adjudicated by Supreme Patriarch. The criteria for punishment according to the rule of the Supreme Sangha Council No. 11 (B.E. 2421) is similar to that of the criminal procedure code in all aspects, except that the legal qualifications of those with authority to make punishment all levels of offending monks are not identified, including legal experts do not get to take part in the investigation, and thus the punishment of monks is not in accordance with Dhamma principles and the criminal code.

                                        As a result, the amendment of the Supreme Sangha Council Rule No. 11 (B.E. 2521) concerning punishment in Title 12, definitions: (11) "Those with Punishment Authority" refers to a monk or the adjudication panel who must have a bachelor's degree in law or be an expert in law; (15) "The Adjudication Panel" includes the Supreme Sangha Council members who must have a bachelor's degree in law or be an expert in law with the duty and power to proceed with the preliminary examination and punishment; (16) “The Adjudication Panel in the Courts of First Instance” refers to adjudication panel under Article 24, consisting of 7, according to Item 7, who must have a bachelor's degree in law or be an expert in law with the duty and power to proceed with the preliminary examination and punishment; (17) “The Adjudication Panel in the Courts of Appeal” refers to the adjudication panel under Article 24, consisting of 5, who must have a bachelor's degree in law or be an expert in law with the duty and power to proceed with the adjudication and punishment at the appeal court; (18) “The Adjudication Panel in the Supreme Court” refers to the adjudication panel under Article 26, according to Item 27, who must have a bachelor's degree in law or be an expert in law with the duty and power to proceed with the adjudication and punishment at the supreme court. The Title 2 of those with punishment authority and the adjudication panels at all courts must have a bachelor's degree in law or be an expert in law should be amended. The disciplinary rules in the second major offences (Pārājika) must also make it clear that an offending monk who has the intention to steal or has successfully committed theft of any value is regarded to have committed the second major offences (Pārājika).