Crime and punishment in Saudi Arabia: Lashing, imprisonment, and other unusual punishments

Abstract

ObjectiveIn this paper, we examine the antecedents of the sanctions of lashing and imprisonment for juveniles in Saudi Arabia. Participants and settingThe current study examined 437 court cases and files across several court systems in Saudi Arabia to determine the extent to which justice-involved youth are punished. The data were drawn from hundreds of court files and records received from several court systems in Saudi Arabia spanning 2010 to 2015. MethodsWe tested several predictor variables on sentence type, number of lashes, and prison length. We employed binary logistic regression to examine sentence type, while we employed negative binomial analysis to examine the second and third dependent variables, number of lashes and length of prison sentence, respectively. ResultsWe found that juveniles processed in juvenile court were more likely to receive more lenient sentences than juveniles tried in the general court system. In addition, older juveniles received harsher sentences (flogging and imprisonment) than younger juveniles (flogging or imprisonment), those who committed multiple offenses received more lashes than those who committed a single offense, and those who had both juvenile and adult criminal associates received more lashes than those who had only juvenile criminal associates. Moreover, the number of presiding judges influenced the severity of punishment: justice-involved youth who were tried by a single judge received fewer lashes than justice-involved youth who were tried by three or more judges. Lastly, justice-involved youth tried by a lone judge were less likely to be sentenced to a longer prison term than those tried by three or more judges. However, justice-involved youth tried by two judges received an even longer prison term than those tried by three or more judges. ConclusionAbout one-half of all rulings examined in the current study were presided over by a lone judge. While punishments imposed by lone judges were not as severe as those imposed by two judges or three or more judges, Saudi judges wield tremendous power over their fellow citizens, more so because there are no jury trials in the Kingdom. We therefore recommend that judicial training emphasize a “do no harm” principle in sentencing. Because a two-judge panel generally imposes a harsher sentence than a panel with three or more judges, we recommend an extensive examination of the country's prior judicial rulings presided over by two judges to understand why they are more likely to issue harsher sentences than lone judges or three- or four-judge panels. The findings would lead to the development of sentencing guidelines to curb arbitrary sentencing and reverse the generally unpredictable sentence lengths imposed on justice-involved youth.