Section 76 — Young adult 18 to 20: discretionary reduction
English translation
Whoever, from eighteen years but not over twenty years of age, commits an act that the law provides to be an offence, if the court thinks fit, the court may reduce the scale of the punishment prescribed for that offence by one third or by one half.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This is the final rung of the age-based scheme in Book 1, Title on Criminal Liability. An offender in the 18-to-20 band is treated as a full adult subject to the ordinary punishment, but the court is given a discretion, exercisable only if it thinks fit, to soften the scale of punishment by one third or one half. The contrast with section 75 is important: for the 15-to-18 band the one-half reduction is mandatory once the court decides to punish, whereas here any reduction depends wholly on the court's view of the person and the circumstances, and the court may reduce by the smaller one-third fraction or decline to reduce at all. This scale reduction is distinct from, and can be combined with, discretionary mitigation under section 78.
Why this matters in practice
For a defendant between eighteen and twenty, there is no guaranteed sentence discount: the reduction is a matter of persuasion, so mitigation evidence about age, background, education and efforts to repair the harm carries real weight. Because the court can choose one third or one half, the difference between the two fractions can be substantial in a serious case, and a defendant should press for the larger reduction while also seeking further mitigation under section 78. Establishing the exact age at the time of the act remains essential.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 345/2568 (2025)
For offenders aged eighteen and nineteen at the time of the act, the court may reduce the scale of the prescribed punishment by one half under section 76.
Several defendants aged eighteen and nineteen at the time were convicted of a serious sexual offence. The court reduced the scale of punishment by one half for those defendants under section 76, cutting fifteen years down to seven years and six months before further mitigation.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4136/2567 (2024)
Section 76 also permits a one-third reduction; a defendant aged nineteen at the time may have the scale of punishment reduced by one third rather than one half.
The defendant, aged nineteen at the time, was convicted of murder and firearms offences. The court reduced the scale of punishment by one third under section 76, showing that the court may choose the smaller fraction rather than one half.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 811/2568 (2025)
The reduction under section 76 is discretionary; the court may find it appropriate to reduce the scale of punishment in light of the young offender's age, record and conduct.
The court found it appropriate to reduce the scale of punishment under section 76, noting the defendant's youth, lack of any prior conviction and the impulsive nature of the conduct, and further suspended the term of imprisonment.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Is the sentence reduction automatic for an 18 to 20 year old?
No. Under section 76 the reduction is discretionary; the court may reduce the scale of punishment by one third or one half only if it thinks fit, and it may decline to reduce at all.
How does section 76 differ from section 75?
Under section 75 the one-half reduction is mandatory once the court decides to punish a 15-to-18 year old, while under section 76 any reduction for an 18-to-20 year old is discretionary and may be one third or one half.