Date of Defense
31-10-2024 1:00 PM
Location
H2-1005
Document Type
Thesis Defense
Degree Name
Master of Public Law (MPL)
College
COL
Department
Public Law
First Advisor
Dr. Mohamed Alhammadi
Keywords
Judicial Individualization of Punishment in UAE Penal Legislation, Criteria for Judicial Assessment of Punishment.
Abstract
This study addresses the topic of judicial individualization of punishment in UAE criminal legislation through a descriptive-analytical approach. In the preliminary section, the study defines punishment, which is imposed as a consequence of a crime that has already occurred, and precautionary measures aimed at confronting criminal danger to prevent future harm that could affect society. The characteristics and purposes of both punishment and precautionary measures are detailed, as they cannot be applied unless those implementing them understand their goals and intended outcomes.
The study examines, in the first chapter, the concept of legislative and judicial individualization of punishment, where the former precedes and influences the latter. It also discusses the methods of judicial individualization, including primary and alternative punishments, such as deportation and community service, which the judge may select based on the type of crime. The study then explores the quantitative gradation of these punishments and their various types. The first chapter concludes with the powers granted to the judge by the criminal legislator, including legal excuses, mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances, recidivism, repetition of offenses, suspension of execution, and judicial pardon. These are all provided by the legislator, acknowledging the importance of judicial individualization of punishment.
In the second chapter, the study explores the criteria for judicial individualization of punishment, which include personal factors related to the offender and objective factors related to the crime and the punishment. These factors cannot be fully addressed by legislative individualization, as legal texts are characterized by their generality and abstraction, and they cannot predict the circumstances surrounding these elements. The study also highlights the role of the public prosecution in the judicial individualization of punishment, noting that the prosecution is a branch of the judiciary. It holds the authority to issue penal orders, dismiss criminal cases due to lack of importance, supervise judicial officers, and pursue criminal cases. The second chapter concludes with practical applications related to the judicial individualization of punishment.
The study reached several conclusions, the most important of which is that the characteristics and purposes of punishment cannot be achieved without individualizing it for each person according to the nature of the crime, its circumstances, and the personality of the accused. Furthermore, the UAE criminal legislator has not stipulated clear guidelines or criteria for judicially determining punishments. The absence of such guidelines leads to the issuance of sentences that do not align with the crime or the criminal. This lack of reasoning in judgments, especially when increasing or decreasing the punishment beyond its minimum or maximum limits or when using any of the available alternatives to the judge, results in the misuse of these methods and makes it difficult to monitor their application.
One of the main recommendations of the study is the need to enact provisions requiring judges to individualize punishment judicially. Additionally, there is a need to establish guiding criteria for judges to determine punishments, as is the case in Yemeni legislation. The study also emphasizes the importance of enacting provisions requiring reasoning when increasing or decreasing punishment beyond its minimum or maximum limits or when using any of the alternatives available to the judge.
Included in
Judicial Individualization of Punishment in UAE Criminal Law
H2-1005
This study addresses the topic of judicial individualization of punishment in UAE criminal legislation through a descriptive-analytical approach. In the preliminary section, the study defines punishment, which is imposed as a consequence of a crime that has already occurred, and precautionary measures aimed at confronting criminal danger to prevent future harm that could affect society. The characteristics and purposes of both punishment and precautionary measures are detailed, as they cannot be applied unless those implementing them understand their goals and intended outcomes.
The study examines, in the first chapter, the concept of legislative and judicial individualization of punishment, where the former precedes and influences the latter. It also discusses the methods of judicial individualization, including primary and alternative punishments, such as deportation and community service, which the judge may select based on the type of crime. The study then explores the quantitative gradation of these punishments and their various types. The first chapter concludes with the powers granted to the judge by the criminal legislator, including legal excuses, mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances, recidivism, repetition of offenses, suspension of execution, and judicial pardon. These are all provided by the legislator, acknowledging the importance of judicial individualization of punishment.
In the second chapter, the study explores the criteria for judicial individualization of punishment, which include personal factors related to the offender and objective factors related to the crime and the punishment. These factors cannot be fully addressed by legislative individualization, as legal texts are characterized by their generality and abstraction, and they cannot predict the circumstances surrounding these elements. The study also highlights the role of the public prosecution in the judicial individualization of punishment, noting that the prosecution is a branch of the judiciary. It holds the authority to issue penal orders, dismiss criminal cases due to lack of importance, supervise judicial officers, and pursue criminal cases. The second chapter concludes with practical applications related to the judicial individualization of punishment.
The study reached several conclusions, the most important of which is that the characteristics and purposes of punishment cannot be achieved without individualizing it for each person according to the nature of the crime, its circumstances, and the personality of the accused. Furthermore, the UAE criminal legislator has not stipulated clear guidelines or criteria for judicially determining punishments. The absence of such guidelines leads to the issuance of sentences that do not align with the crime or the criminal. This lack of reasoning in judgments, especially when increasing or decreasing the punishment beyond its minimum or maximum limits or when using any of the available alternatives to the judge, results in the misuse of these methods and makes it difficult to monitor their application.
One of the main recommendations of the study is the need to enact provisions requiring judges to individualize punishment judicially. Additionally, there is a need to establish guiding criteria for judges to determine punishments, as is the case in Yemeni legislation. The study also emphasizes the importance of enacting provisions requiring reasoning when increasing or decreasing punishment beyond its minimum or maximum limits or when using any of the alternatives available to the judge.