Regulatory individualization and its impact on the judge’s authority to individualize punishment

Abstract

This study identified regulatory individualization and examined its effects on judges' punishment discretion. The descriptive analytical method was employed to answer the three-section research topic using several Saudi systems. The first section defined regulatory individualization. The second section discussed the judge's discretionary power and its justification, the judge's discretionary authority in the types of punishments, the relationship between discretionary authority and punishment function, quantitative grading, qualitative selection, and assessment of discretionary punishment. The judge's authority to mitigate and aggravate punishment was also discussed. The third section, Compulsory Authority in Regulatory Individualization, discussed the judge's compulsory authority to aggravate, mitigate, or relieve punishment. The study also examined mandatory penalty changes. According to the findings, the system took into account the variety of punishment in terms of type and amount, and set the maximum limit for each crime. It also left the judiciary's discretion to determine what is sufficient in deterring perpetrators in proportion to the personality of the party and the circumstances of the offense. As a result, the Saudi regulator considered regulatory individualization in punishments in order to pave the way for judicial individualization in selecting the right punishment. Based on the results, the researcher recommends providing a flexible standard that leaves its discretion to the judicial authority in terms of distinguishing between the original perpetrator and the accomplice in assisting, so that it treats each case separately in terms of criminalization and punishment in line with the issue of proportionality between the punishment and the crime, and the regulator, when setting the regulatory texts and stating the penalties, should make no difference. Between its upper and lower limits is wide, or at least setting appropriate controls to prevent the possibility of the judge controlling and causing harm, while trying to identify the causes, circumstances, and potential general and specific mitigating or aggravating factors and taking them into account when individualizing the punishment.