Sentencing Law and Policy

Horrid case in Austria creates buzz over sentencing in Europe

The AP has this new piece, headlined "Austria case revives European debate on light prison terms," which highlights how one gruesome case has raised new questions about European sentencing attitudes and outcomes.  Here are excerpts:

Police say Josef Fritzl left a lot of human wreckage in his wake: the daughter he imprisoned and raped for 24 years, the seven children he fathered with her and the wife whose life he shattered.  Yet, for an atrocity that has stunned the world, he may wind up serving just 15 years in prison if charged, tried and convicted.

Practically speaking, that may translate into a life sentence for Fritzl, 73. But his case has revived a debate over Europe's lenient penal system — and whether harsher, U.S.-style sentencing guidelines might help deter such heinous crimes.

"Fifteen years for destroying human lives is unacceptable," said Harald Vilimsky, a public safety policy official with Austria's conservative Freedom Party.  "Any punishment that falls a single day short of a life sentence is a mockery of the victims."

Many Europeans abhor the death penalty, and capital punishment is illegal across the 27-nation EU.  But in many countries, even convicted murderers handed life sentences seldom serve more than 25 years.

Sweden has life imprisonment for murder, but the sentencing guidelines go as low as 10 years. That applies — in theory at least — even to serial killers. In Germany, convicted rapists are punished with sentences of six months to five years.  Serial cases, and those involving weapons or death threats, can fetch up to 10 years in prison — but also as little as 12 months.  Poland's maximum for rape is 15 years, and that would apply even for sexual assaults repeatedly carried out over two dozen years as alleged in the Austrian case.  The standard time served? Two to 12 years.

"It's rare that anyone serves the full sentence in Europe," said James Whitman, a professor of comparative and foreign law at Yale.  "It's expected that people are let out early."

In the U.S., by contrast, first-degree rape is punishable by up to life imprisonment in states ranging from Maryland to South Dakota.  Experts say Europe's shorter sentences — and its reluctance to jail people for offenses considered minor, such as possessing small amounts of marijuana — help explain why its prisons are far less crowded than U.S. lockups.

Interesting capital news from China

Both Reuters and BBC News report on interesting death penalty developments from China.  Here is the start of the Reuters report:

China's top court has rejected 15 percent of death sentences handed by lower courts, citing poor evidence and procedural errors under new rules, but a top judge said the death penalty will remain in place for a long time.

China keeps secret the number of prisoners it executes, but international human rights observers have no doubt it judicially kills more than any other country -- with estimates of executions somewhere between 1,000 and 12,000 a year in recent times.

UK looking at a market-incentive approach to prison and prisoner reform

This new article from the Guardian reviews a fascinating set of UK developments that ought to intrigue any and all would-be US criminal justice reforms.  The piece is headlined "Tories plan bonuses for prison governors who cut reoffending," and here are excerpts:

A ground-breaking "payment by results" scheme will turn most prisons into self-governing bodies that will win cash rewards — including bonuses for governors — if they cut reoffending rates among former inmates, David Cameron pledged yesterday.

In a shake-up of criminal justice policy, a future Conservative government would allow prisons to hire private companies or voluntary groups to steer inmates away from a return to crime — or risk a reduction in funds.  Successful prisons, which prevent former inmates from reoffending for two years after their release, would be paid a "premium tariff payment" — a sum equivalent to the amount the state spends on processing an offender through the criminal justice system again.  Prisons that failed to meet their targets would be denied the extra payments and would have to rely on the "basic tariff" paid to house each inmate.

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said the system would cut reconviction rates by 20% and cost the taxpayer nothing because it would redirect £259m that would be spent on future offenders into the new programmes.  The radical changes are the most eye-catching element of what Cameron dubbed a "rehabilitation revolution" to cut the high levels of reoffending.  Sixty-five per cent of offenders are reconvicted within two years of being released from prison, helping to create what Cameron called the "crisis" in the prison system in England and Wales which has seen the prison population recently hit a record 82,180....

A 111-page Tory document on prisons said: "For the first time all institutions in the system — prisons, the probation service, public, private and voluntary agencies — will have one clear incentive: to stop individuals reoffending once they have left prison.  If they are successful they will be able to earn money. If they are not, they will still receive payments to cover their costs."  [Cameron] said: "For too long, Labour have refused to build the prison places that are needed.  And for too long, they have allowed prisons simply to warehouse criminals rather than reforming them.  The result is our chronic rate of reoffending."

This related article, headlined "Prisoners should make reparations to victims, says Cameron," includes some additional details on David Cameron's proposals: "The Conservative leader said that getting prisoners to make reparations to their victims would help to ensure that prisons were places where offenders could be rehabilitated."

The "Policy Green Paper" that lays out all these ideas goes by the catchy name "Prisons with a Purpose" and can be accessed here.

The tough-on-crime turn toward imprisonment in the UK

Across the pond, the Prospect magazine has this long and interesting essay, titled Crime and punishment.  Here is the essay's sub-heading: "Britain is locking up more people than ever — a policy that some say accounts for falling crime. But there may be other reasons for the drop in the crime rate. Are we imprisoning so many people because we have to, or because we want to?".  This is how the essay starts:

There are around 82,000 people in prison in Britain.  Is that a lot or a little?  How can we tell?  Compared to the 2.2m people languishing in US jails it doesn't sound all that many.  Britain's prisoners could fit into the new Wembley stadium with room to spare, although on the government's own projections, all 90,000 Wembley seats will be taken sometime around 2010.  Over the last five years, the prison population has grown by 20 per cent.  Lord Carter, in a report for the government published last December, accepts that this trend will continue, and recommends a new prison-building programme so that supply can meet demand, which may reach 100,000 by 2014. (The government says it wants to stabilise the prison population at about 95,000. The Tories, by contrast, say they are happy to sail on through 100,000.)

Carter notes that the prison population in Britain has risen by 60 per cent since 1995. In Germany it has been more or less stable during this period, while in Canada it has fallen by 11 per cent. New Zealand just outstrips Britain, with 68 per cent growth since 1995, while even the US lags behind with 42 per cent. But it will be a long time before Britain catches up with the US in terms of the imprisonment rate: the US imprisons 750 people per 100,000, as against 149 in England and Wales and 136 in Scotland. Still, within Europe, our imprisonment rate is behind only former eastern bloc countries and, curiously, Luxembourg.  The only west European country that comes close is Spain, which imprisons 146 per 100,000.  By comparison, Germany imprisons 93 per 100,000, Turkey 91, France 85 and Italy 67.

Prison: what a strange thing it is. I can remember my shock as a child being told that some adults had done things so bad they had to be locked away, for years, until they knew better. I could hardly imagine anything worse. Prisons seem to belong to the age of the horse-drawn cart and the workhouse, not Eurostar and the internet. If anything, we should be phasing them out — converting old prisons into luxury flats as we do with unused warehouses and deconsecrated churches.  Instead, we are building more and more — although apparently not enough to cope with the doubling of the prison population over the last 30 years.

Speaking as a philosopher, rather than a criminologist, I find just about everything to do with the criminal justice system a puzzle. But the central question, it seems to me, is this: are we imprisoning more people because we have to, or because we choose to?  And in either case, why?

Concerns down under about extreme plea discounts

As detailed in this new article from Australia, a review of sentencing breaks for pleading guilty is underway down under.  Here are details:

Community outrage over criminals getting lighter sentences for eleventh-hour guilty pleas to lesser charges has prompted a review of NSW guidelines. Attorney-General John Hatzistergos has asked the NSW Sentencing Council to review plea bargaining and a number of other issues relating to how reductions in sentences are determined.

"While reduced sentences for guilty pleas have a part to play in the justice system, it is important they are applied consistently and in accordance with clear principles," Mr Hatzistergos said in a statement today. "This review is in response to police and community expectations and concerns for greater accountability regarding sentence discounts."

Anger over sentence discounting reached boiling point last month when John Taufahema was sentenced to a minimum seven years jail over the 2002 shooting of Senior Constable Glenn McEnallay. Police and Senior Constable McEnallay's family argued Taufahema was essentially rewarded for pleading guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter to save his own neck....

The NSW Sentencing Council is chaired by Justice James Wood and includes representatives from victims groups and the wider community.

This story is telling against the backdrop of debates over these issues in the US.  Though plea discounts sometimes become an issue of controversy here, a related problem is the extreme sentences some offenders will receive principally as a result of exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial.  Nevertheless, despite lots of high-profile examples of extreme "trial penalties" (e.g., the sentences imposed on Jeff Skilling and the border agents), to my knowledge no government review is afoot to assess whether some defendants are being punished to harshly simply for contesting evidence at a trial.

With Olympics coming, China works on its capital conventions

The Los Angeles Times has this fascinating article detailing how the upcoming 2008 Olympics in Beijing has prompted China to review and revise the operation of its death penalty.  Here are excerpts:

Recently, Chinese rights advocates ... have seen progress within a legal system that each year is estimated to execute more people than all other countries combined.  Legislation enacted in 2006 requires the high court to review all death sentences, a step that had been dropped two decades ago.

Facing pressure before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China reportedly has scaled back the pace of executions.  Although the government considers the number a state secret, China executed 1,051 people in 2006, accounting for two-thirds of the 1,591 put to death worldwide that year, according to statistics from Amnesty International, often based on media reports.  That represented a 40% drop from China's recorded total of 1,770 the previous year.  Yet because of state secrecy, some activists believe that the number of executions could be as high as 10,000 to 15,000 a year....

Sixty-eight offenses, including such nonviolent crimes as tax evasion and pornography distribution, carry the death penalty. Officials are considering reducing the number of crimes punishable by execution, but say corruption, bribery and national security violations might still lead to death sentences.

The reforms, advocated by a growing lobby of Chinese lawyers and scholars, are part of a policy that officials call "kill fewer, kill carefully." It calls for improved trial and review processes, and requires that all death penalty appeals be heard in open court.  Experts are divided over how much substance the reforms carry.

Relatedly, as detailed in recent media report, China is moving toward lethal injection over firing squads as its prime execution method.  As this Guardian story explains:

China's executioners are to step up the use of lethal injections, a senior court official told state media, in order to make executions "more humane" in the world's leading practitioner of capital punishment.

The struggle with prison overcrowding in the UK

Just like nearly every state in the US, the UK is struggling with overpacked prisons.  This Reuters story details the problems and the government's brewing reponse:

Justice Secretary Jack Straw will reveal on Wednesday how the government plans to deal with the crisis of overcrowding in prisons.  He will publish the findings of a review by life peer Lord Carter which newspapers report may controversially recommend keeping convicted offenders out of jail when there is not enough space to lock them up. The review may also propose selling off inner-city jails on prime development land and using the proceeds to build more prison space elsewhere to hold high-risk inmates.

At the end of last week, jails were so full with 81,864 prisoners that 177 offenders were being held in police cells.  The government has been forced to release 11,000 prisoners early since June to cope with the lack of cells.

Straw has indicated in recent speeches that he favours a greater use of non-custodial sentences, especially for those given sentences of less than a year.  The prison population has been rising because sentences have grown longer, with average custodial sentences from crown courts rising to over 25 months from 20 months between 2005 and 1995.

And this related story from The Times is headlined "Hopes pinned on American-style sentencing grid to reduce prison overcrowding."  Here is how it starts:

Radical proposals to examine a US-style system of sentencing intended to control the number of offenders sent to overcrowded jails will be outlined by ministers today, The Times has learnt.

Senior judges have expressed concern that the controversial proposals to review the prison-building programme and the impact of sentencing on population could lead to curbs on their sentencing powers.

Canadian politicians punishing mandatory minimum drug sentencess

The CanWest News Service has this interesting article highlighting that the debate over mandatory minimum drug sentencing is spreading north of the boarder.  The article is entitled "Ottawa intent on minimum sentences despite suggested ineffectiveness," and here are excerpts:

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is pressing ahead with plans to create mandatory minimum prison terms for drug crimes in spite of two studies prepared for his own department that say such laws don't work, and are increasingly unpopular as crime-fighting measures in other countries.

"Minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits. Nevertheless, mandatory sentences remain popular with some Canadian politicians." That's one conclusion of a 2005 report prepared for the Justice Department...

Despite such conclusions, the Conservatives unveiled legislation last week to create mandatory minimum prison terms for drug possession, production and trafficking.  The automatic minimum jail terms range from six months for growing and selling a single marijuana plant to three years for producing any quantity of coke or crystal meth in a home lab.  A clause in the bill would allow judges to exempt certain offenders from prison if they pass a court-monitored drug treatment program.

The proposal has been widely criticized as counter-productive by criminal lawyers, criminologists and at least one former Canadian judge. Those criticisms appear to be backed up by the government's own research.... "Severe MMS seem to be least effective in relation to drug offences," said the 2002 study. "MMS are blunt instruments that provide a poor return on taxpayers' dollars."

Nicholson did not respond to a request for an interview on the subject Tuesday. "Drug trafficking, grow-ops, a whole host of activities, have become much worse in recent years," he said last week as he introduced the changes. "I think Canadians and most people will applaud this move."

That, says one observer, is the main reason for the legislation, whether or not it is passed by Parliament. "This is patent stupidity," says Eugene Oscapella, a criminal lawyer who teaches drug policy at the University of Ottawa. "The only excuse I can think of, for why the Conservatives would announce mandatory minimums, is the perceived political mileage this will earn them among certain segments of the public."

Is the US impeding certain Iraqi executions?

This interesting piece in today's New York Sun, entitled "U.S. Sparks Row Over Iraqis Set For Execution," hints that the US is hindering the ability for Iraq to go forward with scheduled executions.  Here are snippets:

The American administration in Baghdad has sparked a diplomatic row with Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq by refusing to hand over for execution three war criminals convicted of genocide, including a cousin of Saddam Hussein's known as "Chemical" Ali....

While Mr. Maliki insists that the execution should go forward without delay, the presidential council has a different view. Under Iraqi law, the council must sign the execution warrants before the hangings are carried out, but the constitution doesn't rule on what happens if they fail to agree on the sentence....

The American Embassy in Baghdad insists that the fate of the three men is in the hands of the Iraq government and that until the legal dispute is resolved, it will keep the trio in coalition captivity.

Some related posts with lots of questions:

• Has President Bush been soft on capital murderers?
• Why is the Bush Administration (secretly?) accepting a de facto moratorium on federal executions?
• Shouldn't President Bush watch the uncut Saddam execution video?

Valuable recidivism assessment and analysis from down under

Thanks to a helpful colleague, I learned of this terrific new report on recidivism published by the Australian Institute of Criminology entitled "Recidivism in Australia: findings and future research."  This report is obviously a must-read for anyone interesting in international sentencing issues, but it also ought to be read closely by anyone seriously interested in evidence-based sentencing policy and reform.

The report is lengthy, but an executive summary makes it easy to take in the highlights.  Here is how that summary starts:

At a time when evidence based policy development has become increasingly important in the criminal justice policy arena, recidivism research provides promise for crime control strategies targeted at reducing reoffending. Identifying recidivists, understanding the correlates of high volume offending, and evaluating programs designed to reduce offending remain three key research and policy priorities in Australia.

Despite the importance of recidivism, there is a large divide between research and policy. What policy makers would like to measure often bears little resemblance to what researchers are able to measure, given the limitations on appropriate data and available information. As a result, research findings are often used out of context and with little regard for limitations imposed on them by the methodological constraints they face. This is driven primarily by a lack of clarity surrounding an appropriate definition of recidivism and clear articulation of research methodologies.

This report deals with important questions relating to recidivism research. It provides a conceptual framework through which recidivism can be defined and interpreted and arms both researchers and policy makers with a battery of tools useful in critical assessment of the research literature. It begins by looking at the general definition of recidivism and the problems inherent in its measurement and identification.

If we really want to deter government corruption...

should we consider following China's lead, as reported here by Reuters:

China on Wednesday hailed the swift execution of the nation's former drug safety chief as a warning to corrupt officials while detailing a web of graft that thrived for years without punishment. Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), dominated television and print news a day after he was executed for taking some 6.5 million yuan ($850,000) in bribes to let medicine companies slip past his regulatory net.

The People's Daily, voice of the ruling Communist Party, said the punishment was intended to deter other wayward officials.  "Corrupt elements will be thoroughly investigated no matter who they are, how high their post, or how deep they hide, and there can be no appeasement or softness," the newspaper said.

Notably, the Chinese legal system certainly made sure Zheng's sentence was not only severe, but also swift: Zheng "was sentenced on May 29 and his appeal was heard last month" and the execution was carried out this week.

Iran's parliament supporting death for porn producers

Among lots of interesting new posts at Capital Defense Weekly, I saw this interesting AP article about an Iranian "bill that could lead to the death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies."  Here are more details:

In a 148-5 vote, lawmakers approved a measure saying "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world.".... To become law, the bill requires approval from the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog in this conservative Islamic country.

It is widely believed that the bill came as a reaction to a scandal last year, when a private videotape, apparently belonging to Iranian actress Zahra Amir Ebrahimi and allegedly showing her having intercourse with a man, became available across Iran. The video was leaked to the Internet and released as a black market DVD, becoming a full-blown Iranian scandal.  Ebrahimi later came under an official investigation, which is still ongoing.

Seeking levity after a long sentencing week, readers are welcome to use the comments to come up with good jokes (perhaps involving Paris Hilton) in light of this story.

Prison overcrowding problems for Kiwis

Highlighting that the US is not the country with prison overcrowding problems, this article from New Zealand details some southern hemisphere prison woes.  Here are highlights:

Overflowing prisons set to explode New Zealand's prison system is five months from a potentially disastrous overcrowding problem, says National's Justice & Corrections spokesman, Simon Power.  "The Government's failure to pass legislation early enough to help ease pressure on our already bulging prisons is to blame for this very concerning possibility."

He is releasing Justice Ministry documents from last year, which show that proposed changes to home detention, community-based sentences, sentencing guidelines and parole reforms which are contained in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill (formerly the Justice Remedial Matters Amendment Bill) are behind schedule.

An interesting down under take on jury involvement in sentencing

Here is a fascinating story about a fascinating proposal to involve juries in sentencing decision-making being discussed in Australia:

A proposal by the NSW Chief Justice, Jim Spigelman, to involve juries in sentencing has been rejected by his fellow judges, who say it would be unworkable and erode confidence in the legal system.

The plan, which involves holding secret discussions between judges and juries on possible sentences, was raised by Justice Spigelman as a way to improve decisions and prevent outbreaks of public hysteria about supposedly lenient sentences.  But it has met with virtually unanimous opposition from across the legal profession, including judges, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the NSW Bar Association, the NSW Law Society and the Public Defenders Office....

The Chief Judge of the District Court, Reg Blanch, said there were "very significant practical problems" with trying to involve jurors in sentencing. "The process would be extremely difficult to administer, and it simply is not a practical option," he said.  "There [would be] an expected wide difference of views between jurors about questions relating to sentence."  Judge Blanch said juries were not interested in sentencing, and many would not return to the court for the proceedings, which frequently require psychiatric reports and are conducted six to eight weeks after the trial. 

Another District Court judge, Michael Finnane, said the plan to hold secret discussions was repugnant and would reduce public confidence in the justice system. "Our system of justice is based upon its being public, and the parties all know what the judge tells the jury," he said.  "The hardest task which I carry out as a judge is to sentence another human being … We place enough stress on jurors as it is by asking them to decide whether or not an accused person is guilty of a crime … To impose the stress of sentencing on an untrained person … would seem to me to be imposing a very heavy burden."

Some of these negative reactions seem especially interesting in the wake of yesterday's US Supreme Court decisions that were all about whether Texas jurors, making "difficult to administer" life-or-death capital sentencing decisions, were given proper instructions to ensure they shouldered the "very heavy burden" of judging whether a murderer should live or die for his crime.

Egyptian blogger sentence upheld

I rarely cover international sentencing developments, but this AP story cuts close to home:

An Egyptian appeals court on Monday upheld the four-year prison sentence given to an Egyptian blogger who criticized conservative Muslims and was convicted of insulting Islam and Egypt's president, court officials said.  Abdel Kareem Nabil's sentence last month had been widely condemned by local and international rights groups as a bid to curb free expression.

Nabil, a 22-year-old former student at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, had been sentenced to three years in prison for insulting Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and inciting sectarian strife, and another year for insulting President Hosni Mubarak.

Here's hoping embattled AG Gonzales does not get any ideas.

Namibia exploring guideline reforms

As detailed below, I have sporadically reported on major sentencing reform news from other parts of the world.  Today, the news comes from Namibia, where this interesting article reports on a "plan to implement sentencing reforms in the Namibian justice system, according to remarks made by Justice Minister and Attorney General Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana yesterday at the official opening of the High Court for 2007."  Here are snippet from the article:

An area that needs serious attention is sentencing reform in the criminal justice system, [Attorney General] Iivula-Ithana continued.  The current system, with sentences for most crimes not prescribed and courts having the discretion to treat each case on its own merits when deciding what sentences would be appropriate for a convicted offender, in her opinion "frequently results in sentencing disparities in more or less similar cases and between sentences in crimes committed against the person as distinct from property and other crimes," Iivula-Ithana said.  "It may also result in the unsatisfactory situation whereby the nature of sentence a convicted offender receives depends on who the sentencing judge was," she added. "I hold the firm view that our system, based as it is on indeterminate sentencing, has serious shortcomings," she said.

She proposed that sentencing reforms, "aimed at reducing disparity and increasing sentence uniformity, proportionality and precision", and also "geared at achieving racial parity in sentencing", should be undertaken. This, she said, can be done through adopting sentencing guidelines — to be determined by an independent body.

Related posts about guideline developments around the world:

• New Zealand's new sentencing reforms
• An international perspective on sentencing disparity
• Israeli proposal for sentencing guidelines
• What Iran and Israel have in common

Swift capital justice for Saddam

At CNN.com here, there is lots of coverage of the execution of Saddam Hussein (including video of the noose being placed around Hussein's neck).  Here is how the lead article begins: "Defiant to the end, Saddam Hussein mocked Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr moments before he was hanged, a witness said Saturday. The Iraqi government executed Hussein as punishment for his conviction of a 1982 massacre, more than two decades before he was toppled by a U.S.-led invasion."

For some blogosphere coverage, check out TalkLeft and Althouse and Instapundit.  My own reaction is to wonder whether all the US states struggling with lethal injection protocols might start seriously talking about hanging as an alternative.

UPDATE:  A helpful reader has sent me US District Judge Kollar-Kotelly's interesting little opinion (available below) denying Saddam Hussein's application to stay his execution.  The opinion concludes that "this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain his petition for a writ of habeas corpus."

Download saddam_hussein_opinion.pdf

New Zealand's new sentencing reforms

As detailed below, I have sporadically reported on major sentencing reform news from other parts of the world.  Today, the news comes from New Zealand, where this article reports that "[t]ougher parole laws, firm sentencing guidelines for judges and more scope for community sentences and home detention feature among big changes to the criminal justice system announced today."  As the article explains:

Overall, the suite of changes is designed to arrest the rising prison population and curb re-offending by giving judges dealing with less serious offenders more options for home detention and community-based punishment and prisons more money and tools to rehabilitate inmates....  At the moment the prison muster is predicted to grow from 7700 to nearly 9000 by 2011. It was 4500 a decade ago.

In addition, "a new Sentencing Council with public input and Parliamentary oversight will set firm guidelines to ensure judges hand down consistent sentences....  The new Sentencing Council, made up of a mix of judicial and non-judicial members, is expected to take two years to be set up and establish guidelines."

Related posts about guideline developments around the world:

• An international perspective on sentencing disparity
• Israeli proposal for sentencing guidelines
• What Iran and Israel have in common

An international perspective on sentencing disparity

I rarely cover international sentencing developments; I can hardly keep up with all the domestic stories.  Nevertheless, this article from Arab News in Saudi Arabia caught my eye with its headline, "Lack of Clear Guidelines Irks Lawyers, Defendants."  Here are some snippets from a fascinating piece:

Reprimanding sentences, which are usually in the form of jail time or flogging or both, are passed based on the judge's jurisprudence and discretion, and herein lies the problem.  For many lawyers, human rights advocates, religious scholars, the lack of codification and regulations upon which to refer when sentencing people for misdemeanors and disputes, makes the Saudi judicial system arbitrary and discriminatory.

Except for certain crimes such as murder, burglary and adultery, Islam does not specify the punishment to be handed to perpetrators for a whole range of crimes, from domestic violence to commercial fraud and drinking alcohol....

Unfortunately, while some judges are lenient others are very severe. The Shoura Council has previously discussed the issue and recommended establishing a codified system for reprimanding sentences as a reference for judges. At a press conference recently, Justice Minister Abdullah Al-Asheikh said that his ministry was directed by the king to put a framework for punitive and reprimanding sentences.

Highly publicized cases such as Nour Miyati's, the Indonesian maid who was sentenced to 79 lashes because she changed her testimony against her sponsor accusing him of torture, or that of teacher Muhammad Al-Harbi, sentenced to 750 lashes for disrespecting Islam, have raised questions on the judges' judgments.  While Miyati's sentence is being appealed and Al-Harbi received a royal pardon, there are many others who are imprisoned and flogged for similarly unsupported or minor accusations.

Related posts on international concerns about sentencing disparity:

• Israeli proposal for sentencing guidelines
• What Iran and Israel have in common