Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing Comparative Law, specifically comparing Thai Law with the Common Law. Now first of all the thing to note, they always say this: "Thailand is a Civil Law country." Fair enough, but in the Civil Law vernacular, that means it's somehow Europeanish or something. That's kind of, when I hear that it's like some sort of Roman or Germanic thing. Yes it takes its traditions, it's sort of inspired by that, but you have to understand Thai Law is unique; Thailand was never colonized; Thailand never went through the same processes that various other countries around the world, especially down here in Southeast Asia had to go through. 

Now they adopted certain aspects of Westernism if you will, including aspects of the Civil Law. They pulled certain aspects of the Common Law depending on what they want to do especially of trade by the way. But at the end of the day though, there are vast differences between the Civil Law generally, and the Common Law, but they're big differences between the Thai System just specifically; I'm just going to call it Thai Law. In fact moving forward I probably will just keep calling it Thai Law, I'm tired of calling it the Civil Law because then Civil Law people sort of think that it means certain things that it may mean in certain instances but it may not depending on the circumstances, so I'm just going to call it Thai Law.

But one big difference here that a lot of folks that come from the Common Law really don't look at is Thailand doesn't utilize juries, and juries are pretty much one of the bedrock aspects of the Common Law going all the way back to Magna Carta, jury of your peers. It just doesn't exist in the Thai Legal System. Everything is dealt with here through some form of magistrate or judiciary and we don't utilize jury. That is a major difference and something you need to be well aware of when you're dealing with both Civil legal matters here in Thailand, as well as Criminal.