ON July 24, a local media reported that a 28-year-old man was sentenced to life imprisonment and seven strokes of the rotan by a Sessions Court in Kota Kinabalu for possessing and planting a cannabis tree.

The defendant was found guilty of having and planting a 44.7cm cannabis tree weighing 6.38g inside a room of a house.

He was convicted under Section 6B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, an offence punishable under Section 6B(3) of the same Act, which provides for life imprisonment and whipping, not less than six strokes, on conviction.

Many people perceived the sentence as harsh for a mere 6.28g of cannabis. To determine if the sentencing is just, these questions need to be addressed:

1. Does the punishment fit the crime?

2. Are sentencing guidelines long overdue in our courts?

To answer these questions effectively, we must analyse the following details.

Sentencing guidelines are a set of principles that aid courts in determining appropriate and just sentences for various criminal offences. These guidelines are usually created and implemented by a sentencing council or commission.

The primary purpose of sentencing guidelines is to promote consistency, fairness, transparency and proportionality within the criminal justice system.

Their objective is to ensure that similar offences receive comparable sentences while minimising disparities and subjective judgments in the sentencing process.

Sentencing guidelines generally take into account various factors, such as the nature and severity of the offence, the offender’s criminal history and background, victim’s statement, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and the goal of the punishment.

While sentencing guidelines are intended to assist judges in determining an appropriate sentence, they also allow some degree of judicial discretion within certain parameters.

In some jurisdictions, some offences come with mandatory minimum sentences, while others offer advisory guidelines that judges can depart from under specific circumstances.

Sentencing guidelines can lead to more efficient use of resources within the criminal justice system. By providing recommended punishments for different offences, they can help prevent excessively lengthy or costly trials and encourage plea bargains if defendants see a clear path for sentencing outcomes.

Furthermore, sentencing guidelines can play a vital role in advancing broader policy objectives.

They can be designed to incorporate societal goals, such as deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, restitution, restorative justice and public safety, thereby offering direction on appropriate sentences that align with these aims.

The establishment of a sentencing council will be the first progressive step towards formulating and implementing effective sentencing guidelines.

This council should comprise a diverse group of individuals, including judges (current and retired), legal experts, criminologists, psychologists and other relevant community partners.

The inclusion of social scientists in this council is crucial, given their expertise in behavioural science and organisational culture.

Their insights will prove invaluable in developing well-informed and well-balanced guidelines.

Ultimately, the implementation of sentencing guidelines is necessary to achieve consistency, fairness and transparency within the legal system while also permitting judicial discretion and addressing broader policy objectives.

These guidelines will establish a standardised sentencing approach, ensuring consistency of treatment for similar cases while taking into account mitigating circumstances for individualised justice.

Despite these intentions, sentencing guidelines still face criticism and debate. Some argue that they may restrict judicial discretion and fail to consider the individual circumstances of each case.

This article first appeared on The Sun Daily.