Inconsistency in Ta’zir Punishments in Islamic Juveniles’ System

When I was a paralegal in Saudi, I regularly came across many imprecise observations that tended to generalise about gross and severe lashings or jail sentences, ignoring the fact that this topic is very sensitive and highly complex. A great deal of information about juveniles' Ta'zir (i.e. corrective) punishments in Islam, e.g. the types, age group, gender, associates and previous convictions of the punished juveniles, has been obtained through the examination of verdicts. Correlating this data would, in theory, lend statistical and quantitative support to previous findings in past papers. Of particular interest is whether these results prove the inconsistency between three elements: crime, punishment, and the different circumstances of the juvenile offender (e.g. gender, associates, age group, previous convictions). This statistical analysis allows an extension of academic knowledge of the Islamic juveniles' system, beyond individual cases, so as to develop a more comprehensive analytical view about it.

Inconsistency in the penal code, especially in the Saudi juveniles' system, has become an important research topic.A few articles and reports have been published to address this issue.For instance, Alshafi (2014, p.27) notes that consistency does not generally mean equalizing the penalty for all who commit the same crime.The penalty can differ from one person to another according to diverse motives, circumstances and the impact of the crime, but the role of the legislator is, however, to institute a balance between the punishment and the crime, determining a maximum and minimum amount for the sentences as well as allowing some room for judges to choose between those determined amounts based on the particulars of a case.Hence, finding a balance between a crime and its penalties is called legislative individualization, while choosing appropriate penalties for the criminals is referred to as the individualization of sentencing.
Unfortunately, the criteria upon which Saudi juveniles' judges can prescribe consistent, or at least similar, penalties have not been clearly identified.In my previous research and conference papers, I tried to assess the thematic process of prosecuting juveniles by qualitatively examining the theoretical basis and practice of the Saudi juveniles' system, analyzing and supporting my claims with verdicts gathered from the courts.This allowed me to arrive at important conclusions based on that examination.The next step was to determine whether those findings hold outside the investigative sample.A great deal of information about juveniles' Ta'zir (i.e.corrective) punishments in Islam, such as the type, age group, gender, associates and previous convictions, has been obtained through the examination of verdicts.Correlating this data would, in theory, lend statistical and quantitative support to findings.
In other words, despite the meaningful data collected from the case studies files in previous papers, it was apparent that there was a need to conduct statistical analysis.This statistical analysis has allowed a further extension of knowledge of the Saudi juveniles' system, beyond individual cases, in order to arrive at a more comprehensive analytical view.Specifically, this research has indicated that the current judicial problems faced by juveniles strongly depend on distorted perceptions caused by almost all the previous conducted research.Thus, before determining the key characteristics and measures that need to be examined within the juveniles' verdicts, it is useful to summarize some of what Alrousan (2010) suggested in this regard.He conducted a discussion on the "judicial individualization of the punishments" that involved investigating the likely settings sentences_fixed) as these variables have more than two groups.Thus, the outcomes of the tables were analysed and interpreted.

Juveniles' Verdicts: Gender
After each case, the information given in the verdicts was reflected upon in order to pick out potential themes and topics for further examination.One remarkable theme that appeared from the data was the disproportionate number of females and males involved within crime.For instance, Table 1 (below) shows that the percentage for male cases was 86.7% with 235 frequencies, while for females it was 12.9% with 35 frequencies.However, one of these cases is missing because of mis-archiving. 4 Gender should not be taken for granted, because it has a strong effect on the way juveniles' judges oversee cases.Juveniles in Saudi are very much separated in courts based on their gender.For instance, the verdicts gathered from the Social Observation House (SOH) contained only boys' cases while the Care Institution for Girls (CIG) housed girls' cases.Cases that contain execution or cutting committed by minors were already directed to either the general or criminal court. 5The data statistically shows two relevant factors; while there is a statistical significance between juveniles' gender on the one hand, and their associates (Tables 2-2.2), on the other hand, there is no such statistical significance between juveniles' gender and their previous convictions (Tables 3-3.2).Consequently, three issues needed to be pursued further -gender, juveniles' associates and juveniles' previous convictions -all of which must be considered with regard to the punishments given (e.g.fixed lashes, discretionary lashes and jail).However, the last two elements (i.e.juveniles' associates and juveniles' previous convictions) will be left now for a detailed discussion on them in subsequent sections.To interpret the output from Tables 2-2.2, it can be seen that there is no violation for the Chi-square assumptions since more than 80% of cells have a frequency of more than 5.This can be found in the footnote signalled "a" of Table 2.1.Subsequently, the main value that is pertinent is the Pearson Chi-square (Table 2.1).However, since there is a 2 by 2 table (i.e. each of the variables have only two categories), then the continuity correction in the second row should be noted, because this is Yates's correction for continuity, which compensates for overestimates of the Chi-square value when used with 2 by 2 tables.In this example, the continuity correction value is 4.819 with an associated significance level of .028;this is presented in the column labelled Asymp.Sig.(2-sided).Consequently, there is a significant difference as the associate significance level is less than .05(i.e. it is .028 in the case above).This does mean that there is a strong relation between gender and associates in juveniles' verdicts in Saudi Arabia, so judges are already aware of that.For instance, in Table 2 it appears that while 82% of male juveniles are associated with others when committing crimes, 100% of girls commit crimes in association with others.The size effect can be found in Table 2.2, so in this case the Phi Coefficient criteria are relevant, as there are only 2 by 2 tables.Therefore, it appears that the Phi value is -.133, which is considered a small effect using Cohen's (Pallant, 2013, p.228) criteria of .10 for small effect, .30for medium effect and .50 for large effect.
Additionally, a Chi-square test was used to discover relations between categorical variables (e.g.gender with either associates and judicial precedents on the one hand, and age-grouping with either associates and judicial precedents on the other hand).Consequently, in Tables 2-2.2, it can be seen that there is a strong relation between gender and associates in minors' verdicts.While 82% of boys had associates when committing crimes, 100% of girls had associates.Tables 4-6.1 will help to reveal to what extent punishments are different for both genders.
Due to the strong relation between gender and juveniles' associates as shown in Tables 2-2.2, it was decided to examine gender further with regard to three Ta'zir punishments. 6Despite the fact that Ta'zir penalties are not limited as they are subject to the judges' discretion, Awadh blamed Aud'a, a former judge, for limiting Ta'zir penalties to only four general categories: oral punishment (e.g.admonition, reprimand, threat and public disclosure); bodily punishment (e.g.flogging 7 ); financial corrective punishment (e.g.fines, seizure of property, and loss of employment); and negative corrective sanctions for freedom (e.g.temporary or life imprisonment and exile).However, only jailing and flogging were found in the judicial applications related to juveniles.The other penalties (e.g.admonition, reprimand, threat and public disclosure, fines, seizure of property) were dismissed, or perhaps only mentioned in some very rare cases, to the degree that these were not statistically significant.
To explain the output from Tables 3-3.2, it can be seen that there is no violation of Chi-square assumptions since more than 80% of cells have a frequency of more than 5.As stated under Table 3.1, 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5.The minimum expected count is 5.86.Further, since there is a 2 by 3 table, whereby one variable (gender) has only two categories while the other (precedents) has three categories, a continuity correction is not pertinent.However, in this example, the Pearson Chi-square value is 3.942 with an associated significance level of .139.This is presented in the column labelled Asymp.Sig.(2-sided).Consequently, there is no significant difference as the associated significance level is more than .05(i.e. it is .139 in the case above).This does not mean that there is a strong relation between gender and precedents in juveniles' verdicts in Saudi Arabia, so judges should not take this into account while prosecuting juveniles' offences.For instance, in Table 3 it appears that while 51.9% of juvenile boys had no precedents, juvenile girls with no precedents numbered 67.9%.In addition, while the proportions of those boys and girls who had precedents seem close together (i.e.boys are 27.2 and girls are 10.7), there are similar proportions for those juveniles who had not specified their precedents (i.e.boys are 20.9 and girls are 21.4).Unfortunately, the judicial situation for juveniles in Saudi is that judges and the Prosecutor-General tend to take juveniles' previous convictions into account while prosecuting them.

N OF VALID CASES 344
To explain the above output from Tables 3-3.2, it can be seen that there is no violation of Chi-square assumptions since more than 80% of cells have a frequency of more than 5.As stated above under Table 3.1, 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5.The minimum expected count is 5.86.Further, since there is a 2 by 3 table, whereby one variable (gender) has only two categories while the other (precedents) has three categories, a continuity correction is not pertinent.However, in this example, the Pearson Chi-square value is 3.942 with an associated significance level of .139.This is presented in the column labelled Asymp.Sig.(2-sided).Consequently, there is no significant difference as the associated significance level is more than .05(i.e. it is .139 in our case above).This does not mean that there is a strong relation between gender and precedents in juveniles' verdicts in Saudi Arabia, so judges should not take this into account while prosecuting juveniles' offences.For instance, in Table 3 it appears that while 51.9% of juvenile boys had no precedents, juvenile girls with no precedents numbered 67.9%.In addition, while the proportions of those boys and girls who had precedents seem close together (i.e.boys are 27.2 and girls are 10.7), there are similar proportions for those juveniles who had not specified their precedents (i.e.boys are 20.9 and girls are 21.4).Unfortunately, the judicial situation for juveniles in Saudi is that judges and the Prosecutor-General tend to take juveniles' previous convictions into account while prosecuting them.
The size effect can be found in Table 3.2, so in this case Cramer's V criteria should be depended upon as there are 2 by 3 tables.Cramer's V criteria take into account degrees of freedom, so it appears that the value is .10which is considered a small effect, if it is rounded to a close value which is .07,using Cramer's V criteria (Pallant, 2013, p.228) (for three categories, which is of .07 for small effect, .21for a medium effect and .35for a large effect).
While Awadh (2008) claims that Ta'zir penalties are not determined, one can critically ask about Ta'zir penalties that are already specified in the Quran (e.g.Quran 4: 34).To address this, Awadh notes that the Ta'zir penalties mentioned in the Quran do not necessarily limit all discretionary punishments to only four categories, as long as the penalty is legitimate and appropriate for the crime and the criminal.Yet, being mentioned in the Quran means legitimizing the penalty only, in order for the judge to use them in his verdicts.Therefore, it does not mean limiting the discretionary punishments only to those mentioned in the Quran.Hence, the judge's role is to seek a balance between the penalty, crime and criminal.With this in mind, this paper will statistically prove that, even when discretion is openly given to juveniles' judges in Saudi, almost all of their verdicts were solely confined to either fixed lashes, discretionary lashes or discretionary jail, as can be seen by critically looking at Tables 4-6.1.
It can be concluded that there are significant differences between boys and girls in discretionary flogging, as girls get far more lashes, by 200 scores/lashes (Table 4.2).Additionally, jail punishment for girls is higher than boys by 18 months 8 (Table 5).However, there were no significant differences in respect to fixed lashes penalties, either for boys or girls.The reason behind this is that fixed lashes are predominantly determined by Allah, so there should be no variation in such sentences (Tables 6 and 6.1).To elaborate, the output from the Mann-Whitney U test above shows there are no violations of the SPSS assumptions in Table 4 above as SPSS does not indicate anything about this; the main value that needs to be considered is the Z value.This can be found at in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 4.1).The Z value is -2.793 so the result is very significant (i.e. the differences between males and females in the sentences-lashes are statistically important).As a result, according to Table 4, the mean ranks for males is (168.07),while for females it is (222.46).However, Pallant (2013, p.237) comments that when statistical differences are found, the median scores should be reported instead of the mean rank because the statistical analysis here is non-parametric.The median score for males is 80 while it is much more severe for females, with 200.This, again, emphasizes the unsuitability in discretionary lashes between boys and girls, let alone in one gender only.To interpret, there are no violations of the SPSS assumptions in Table 5 above as SPSS does not indicate anything about this; the main value that is pertinent is the Z value, which can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 5.1).The Z value is -2.698 so the result is really significant (i.e. the differences between males and females in the sentences_jail are statistically important as it is proven that the significance level is .007,which is much lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 5, the mean rank for males is (168.22),while for females it is (220.80).The median scores for males in Table 5.2 is 6 months while it is much more severe for females with 18 months.There are no violations of the SPSS assumptions in Table 6.1 above as SPSS does not indicate anything about this.The main pertinent value here is the Z value, which can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 6.1).The Z value is -.024 so the result is not really significant (i.e. the differences between males and females in the sentences_fixed are statistically not important as it is proved that the significance level is .981,which is much more than .05).As a result, according to Table 6, the mean ranks for males are (172.48),while for females (172.70).Therefore, there is no need for median scores instead of mean rank.The reason for this is that the fixed lashes is already determined by Allah.Hence, there should not be any variations therein except in cases featuring the Khamr fixed penalty since there are different juristic opinions about it (i.e.whether 80 or 40 lashes are appropriate).Nevertheless, Saudi juveniles' judges are applying sentences according to the Hanbali doctrine, which specifies the Khamr fixed penalty to be 80 lashes.

Juveniles' Verdicts: Age Groups
Notwithstanding the fact that there are many opinions in Islamic law concerning the issue of puberty, the Saudi juveniles' system is in a state of confusion, especially when it has created an unprecedented opinion in determining the age of puberty for girls at 30 years old.Within this research, juveniles' age groups in Saudi are classified into three stages: 7 to 15 years old, 16 to 18 years old and, finally, 19 to 30 years old.With regard to a relationship between juveniles' age groups and the three punishments (Tables 9-9.6), there are significant differences in all three punishments (discretionary lashes, jail and fixed lashes) in terms of the age-grouping.Furthermore, in terms of jail punishment (Tables 9-9.1), members of the older group, aged 19-30, were sentenced to the longest time in prison (mean rank of 218.52 months), while the second group, aged 15-18 years, was sentenced for 172.93 months.Yet, the shortest time of jail found was for the youngest group, aged 7-15 years, which was 120.48 months.To clarify, 120.48 months means more than ten years in prison.This is in fact is the shortest jailing time (even for juveniles!), while the longest jailing period was 218.52 months, which translates to more than 18 years in prison.Initially, these results seem logical, as juveniles' judges take into account the gradation according to the juveniles' age groups.However, it is not convincing since the criteria upon which the juveniles' judges have prescribed the sentence is not really known.In other words, the jail sentences are inconsistent since they are extremely open to the juveniles' judges' discretion to decide without clear guidance or criteria.This paper calls for replacing the penalty of jail time with other, more useful, rehabilitative procedures.
Similarly, in the case of discretionary lashing, Tables 9.2 and 9.3 illustrate that the highest amount of discretionary penalty was given to the older group, aged 19-30, with a mean rank of 218.00 lashes, while the second group, aged 16-18 years old, was given 174.25 lashes.However, the youngest group, aged 7-15 years old, was given the lightest number of lashings, at 107.46.To detail the output from Tables 9.2 and 9.3, it can be seen that there are no violations for SPSS assumptions in Table 9.2.The main values that are relevant are the Chi-square, degree of freedom (df) and significance level values; these can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 9.1).The Chi-square value is 18.383, so the result is very significant (i.e.there are huge differences in lashes given to juveniles according to their age group as it is proved that the significance level is .000,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 9.2, the mean ranks for juveniles aged 7-15 years old was 107.46, while for those aged 16-18 years old it was 174.25.The mean ranks for juveniles aged 19-30 was 218.00, which indicates that the last age group gets the most severe lashing, demonstrating the same ambiguous issue that they look like adults yet are juveniles.However, with regard to the fixed lashing penalty (Tables 9.4-9.6), it can be seen that there is no significant difference in the fixed lashing penalty between the different juveniles' age groups.For example, for fixed lashes, the 7-15 group was given 160 while the second group, aged 16-18 years old, was given 173.74 and the older group given 172.26.It is argued that since the lashes here are fixed by God (i.e. the law giver), then there should be no differences in the fixed lashes with regard to juveniles' age groups because it is fixed.9.5).The Chi-square value is 2.410 so the result is not really significant (i.e.there are huge differences in fixed penalties for juveniles according to their age group, as it is proved that the significance level is .300,which is more than .05).As a result, according to Table 9.4, the mean rank for juveniles aged 7-15 years old was 160.00, while for those aged 16-18 years old it was 173.74.Also, the mean rank for juveniles aged 19-30 was 172.26, indicating no statistical importance.

Juveniles' Verdicts: Juveniles' Associates
Despite the fact that Saudi juveniles' judges primarily apply the Hanbali doctrine, their verdicts were inconsistent with regard to juveniles' associates.There is an extensive discussion on the theory of juveniles' associates (whether juveniles or adults), arguing that the Hanbali and Shafie schools claim that the fixed penalty will only be applicable to an adult. 9This view looks at distinguishing liabilities between perpetrators (e.g.adult and juvenile).Therefore, there is no criminal responsibility nor penalty for the minor, whereas the adult, who joined the juvenile, will not benefit from being with him (Ibn Qudamah, 1999;Alshirasi, 2003).Unfortunately, the statistics show that there have been many cases where juveniles who have associates were punished far more harshly than those who did not have associates.For instance, Tables 10-10.7 demonstrate that there are significant differences between associates in discretionary and fixed lashes and jail time, because the juveniles who had associates seemed to receive more severe punishment than those who did not.According to Table 10.2, the median scores for discretionary lashes for juveniles who had associates is 100.00 while it is much lower for those who had not, at 60. Further, according to Table 10.5, the median scores for jail sentences for juveniles who had associates is 12.00, while it was much lower for those who had not by 1.00.To explain the output from Tables 10-10.2, it can be seen that there are no violations for SPSS assumptions.The main relevant value is the Z value; this can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 10.1).The Z value is -2.515 so the result is very significant (i.e. the differences between juveniles who had associates and those who did not in the sentences_lashes are statistically important as it is proved that the significance level is .012,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 10, the mean ranks for juveniles who had associates is (178.47),while for juveniles who did not have associates it is (142.45).According to Table 10.2, the median scores for juveniles who had associates is 100.00, while it is much lower for those who did not, by 60.
For Tables 10.3-10.5, there are no violations for SPSS assumptions.The most relevant value is the Z value; this can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 10.4).The Z value is -4.646 so the result is very significant (i.e. the differences between juveniles who had associates and those who did not in the sentences_jail are statistically important as the significance level is .000,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 10.3, the mean ranks for juveniles who had associates is (183.54),while for juveniles who did not have associates it is (116.93).According to Table 10.5, the median scores for juveniles who had associates is 12.00, while it was much lower for those who had not by 1.00.
However, the prevalence of fixed lashes as a punishment was higher for those who did not have associates.
According to Table 10.6, the mean ranks for fixed lashes for juveniles who had associates was 166.62, while for juveniles who did not have associates it was 202.12.This significant statistical difference in fixed lashes between juveniles who had associates and who did not lead one to question why.Bearing in mind that the fixed lashes are predominantly determined by God, they cannot vary from person to another.To cap it all, in my work as a paralegal I have repeatedly seen how fixed penalties are added to extra discretionary punishments without clear criteria.Again, it is very important to create a balance between the crime, its punishment and the issue of the juvenile's associates.However, Ibn Alqayim (1999, p.394) has a different opinion, as he responded to Awadh when he claimed that the complete legislative power is for God.He gave some room for the ruler to legitimate some penalties for Ta'zir crimes, as well as to legislate certain conditions for crimes.Ibn Alqayim (1999, p.394) tried to respond to this, claiming that since the crimes' results are different due to their abundance or otherwise, as well as their strong or weak impacts, the crimes' penalties are authoritatively given to the Imams/qadis to choose a balance that is suitable for penalizing based on public interest, place, time and the criminals themselves.However, Ibn Alqayim argued any consolidation between time, place or criminals in the penalty demonstrates a misunderstanding of Islamic law.In elaborating on the output from Tables 10.6 and 10.7, it is evident there are no violations for SPSS assumptions.The main value that is pertinent is the Z value; this can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 10.7).The Z value is -5.475 so the result is very significant (i.e. the differences between juveniles who had associates and those who had not in the sentences_fixed are statistically important as it is proved that the significance level is .000,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 10.6, the mean ranks for juveniles who had associates was 166.62, while for juveniles who did not have associates it was 202.12..000

Juveniles' Verdicts: Crime Types
The researcher decided to choose certain cases (i.e.Ta'zir crimes) that truly show situations where the fixed punishments are not applied, yet corrective punishments were alternatively applicable, but extremely different in quantity.In other words, four specific crimes were selected: theft, adultery, use of drugs and alcohol, and Hirabah (i.e.armed robbery).The reason is that these crimes are considered the most dangerous in Saudi society and, hence, have more severe punishments in Sharia.This can be seen, for instance, in Tables 11-11.6.
It would appear that displaying variables inside the judicial decisions, noting the frequency and percentage, should provide a clearer picture about the corrections that can be achieved.Thus, to describe the percentages and frequencies for the offences in this chapter, Table 11 illustrates that four crimes are already fixed in Sharia, yet some of their conditions had not been met, so discretionary punishments are applicable, such as undetermined flogging and jailing.This represented 39.2% or 135 cases for theft offences.With regard to the crime of adultery, this comprised 7.8% or 35 cases, while drugs and alcohol crimes constituted 17.2% or 59 cases.Furthermore, Hirabah crime was committed 35.8% of the time, or in 123 cases.These discretionary sentences varied, even for the same crime, such as theft.It is argued here that the main reason could be that the law has not been codified, and there is no Tadwin or any criteria upon which the judge can prescribe the sentences.However, some Saudi judges were confused and prescribed paradoxical decisions, even when some of them depended on legal maxims.Alkhunain (2010, p.81), who was seen a stereotype for other judges, wrote on how to determine discretionary punishment.Alkhunain posited that discretionary punishment should be similar to fixed penalties for similar crimes.Thus, for the crime of promoting drug use, the discretionary penalty of flogging was similar to that for drinking alcohol, a fixed penalty.Unfortunately, Alkhunain's paper has arguably not assisted in reforming the situation with regard to this research since some judges have prescribed combined punishments (i.e.severe flogging with long jail terms).Further, there are no similar punishments for some discretionary crimes that are comparable to those with fixed penalties in Islamic law.For example, in theft crimes where the conditions for the fixed penalty (i.e.cutting the right hand off) are missed, the discretionary penalty, however, is not, and cannot be, similar to the fixed one.show that there are significant differences in all three punishments (discretionary lashes, jail and fixed lashes) for the four crimes that are the focus of this paper (adultery, theft, the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs, and Hirabah).For adultery, the jail penalty is the highest, at 222.63 months (Table 11.1).In contrast, alcohol and drugs punishment are the lowest, with jail terms of 95.18 months.Both crimes have alternatives in terms of punishments according to Alkhunain (2010); for example, jail may not be an appropriate sentence for adultery and alcohol since these two crimes can both be altered in lashing (i.e. because their fixed penalties were whipping, yet the judges herein mixed jail with discretionary lashing).Muhammadin (2011) argues that jail sentences can be altered in other social, economic and personal ways, but did not clarify what precisely what he meant, such as house arrest or curfews, or even fines.Nor did he provide a plan for applying his argument.Interpretation of the output from Tables 11.1 and 11.2 shows that there are no violations for the SPSS assumptions.The main values pertinent are the Chi-square, degree of freedom (df) and significance level values; these can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 11.2).The Chi-square value is 63.154 so the result is very significant (i.e.there are huge differences in lashing juveniles according to their age group, as it is proved that the significance level is .000,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 11.1, the mean rank for theft is 161.41, while for adultery this is 222.63.Also, the mean rank for drugs and alcohol is 95.18, and for Hirabah (armed robbery), it is 210.76,so this indicates that the sentence for adultery is the most severe punishment, but a question remains as to why.This might indicate the presence of ambiguity..000 In terms of Tables 11.3 and 11.4: there are no violations for SPSS assumptions.The main values that are relevant are the Chi-square, degree of freedom (df) and significance level values; these can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 11.4).The Chi-square value is 33.365 so the result is very significant (i.e.there are huge differences in lashing juveniles according to their age group, as it is proved that the significance level is .000,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 11.3, the mean rank for theft is 152.76, while for adultery it is 224.78.Also, the mean rank for drugs and alcohol is 132.68, and for Hirabah (armed robbery) it is 201.79, which indicates that the sentence for adultery is the most severe in terms of discretionary lashes.
Interpretation of the output from Tables 11.5 and 11.6 shows that there are no violations for SPSS assumptions.
The main values relevant are the Chi-square, degree of freedom (df) and significance level values; these can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table 11.6).The Chi-square value is 49.849 so the result is very significant (i.e.there are huge differences in lashing juveniles according to their age group as it is proved that the significance level is .000,which is lower than .05).As a result, according to Table 11.5, the mean rank for theft is 162.54, while for adultery it is 173.17.Also, the mean rank for drugs and alcohol is 209.42, and for Hirabah (armed robbery) 165.58, which indicates that drug and alcohol sentences are the most severe punishment in terms of fixed lashes, but a question again remains as to why.There is no clear answer from the judges.For adultery, discretionary lashes also numbered the highest, at 224.78 (Table 11.3), and again, the crime of alcohol and drugs consumption was the lowest in discretionary lashes at 132.68.The fixed lashes penalty was the highest for alcohol crime at 209.42 (Table 11.5), while theft crimes had the lowest rate with 162.54.One of the most remarkable notes here is that judges are combining fixed and discretionary penalties.Moreover, through looking at Table 11.5, something rather strange can be seen, which is that theft has a fixed lashes penalty other than the cutting of the hand off.The reason why this sounds strange is that theft does not have a fixed lashes penalty, so the verdict might be vague or accommodated wrongly or not accurately (i.e. the case was accommodated as theft while inside the case the culprit admitted that he/she had drunk alcohol, but not theft, so the judge prescribed two penalties: one was for theft and the other was for alcohol).

Juveniles' Verdicts: Previous Convictions
There are no significant differences in all three penalties (discretionary lashes, jail and fixed lashes) in relation to juveniles' precedents, as can be seen in Tables 12-12.5.This indicates that precedents were not taken into account by judges when dealing with juveniles' crimes.However, precedents were written down by a public prosecutor so as to trace the juvenile's situation in order to maximize the penalty when the crime was committed for a second time.Alotaibi (2003, p.464) reports that according to Saudi ulema's fatwa number (1/43) and the Saudi juveniles' system, they are allowed to record juveniles' precedents if they are aged 15 and above in a special file in the court.Yet, Alkhunain (2010, p.96) has forgotten to exempt juveniles from having their sentences increased in cases of recidivism, so it is understood that his paper advises judges to consider precedents in the verdicts, even if the accused is a juvenile..743 The results here indicate that there are no significant differences in jail sentence with regard to precedents of juveniles as the significance value shown in Table 12.1 is .59,which is more than (.05/ P value).Additionally, there are no significant differences in lash sentences with regard to precedents according to Table 12.3, as the P value is .454,which is more than .05.In addition, according to Table 12.5, there are also no important differences in the fixed lashes penalty with regard to precedents since the P value is .743,which is more than .05.

Summary and Recommendation
This paper has discussed Ta'zir in conjunction with SPSS analysis and the results thereof.Thus, in Ta'zir crimes and their penalties in the Islamic juveniles' system, only jailing and flogging in the judicial applications related to juveniles.Otherwise, the other penalties (e.g.admonition, reprimand, threat, fine and seizure of property) were dismissed or, at best, mentioned in very rare cases (to the degree that they were statistically not significant).This led to an analysis of Ta'zir penalties via further SPSS calculations.In short, the tables indicated in the text above show that there are strong relations between factors such as gender and age groups in Saudi juveniles' verdicts with associates, while there are no strong relations between both gender and age grouping in relation to juveniles' judicial precedents.Furthermore, there were considerable inconsistencies in the discretionary lashes and jail punishments with regard to both genders, except in respect of fixed lashes.Additionally, there were substantial differences in the discretionary lashes, fixed lashes and jail penalties with regard to juveniles' associates, the four discretionary crimes and age groups.However, there were no statistical differences in those three punishments with regard to the juveniles' judicial precedents.Thus, the inconsistency extended to cover almost all the four thematic areas in the Saudi juveniles' system (i.e.codification/Tadwin, the age of criminal liability, crime classification, and punishment).Some potential solutions have been discussed in past papers, 10 except for the classification of crimes and consistency in sentencing, as these have been left until now, in order to develop a clearer picture of juvenile crime and punishment.
I would strongly suggest that juveniles' crimes classification and punishment should be re-organised again into distinct procedures, rather than focusing on penalizing.The names of crimes cannot be altered in Sharia law, but crimes can, however, be classified according to their punishment in Islam.Hence, the paper has considered penalties that are considered Hudud, Qisas and Tazir penalties 11 .Hudud (fixed) offences refer to those with a fixed penalty that is mostly due to Allah's right (Almarghinani, 2006, p.200).Hudud crimes are not just limited to only one crime, generally covering seven crimes, that are, adultery, defamation, drinking wine, theft, rebellion, banditry (armed highway robbery) and apostasy.With regard to the complex legal nature of the Islamic law, it should be borne in mind the difficulties in translating some of its terms, cultural and historical styles.Added to this, some authors on Islamic law generally do not refer to their original resources, such as books of the four schools.Bassiouni (1982) reported that this writing style is commonly practised by some Islamic scholars (e.g.Awadh, 2008) as they assume that those books were well known to everyone.Qisas crimes can be defined according to Almawardi (2013, p.303) as "a punishment that is pre-determined by Sharia, in which the human right is predominant".Ta'azir can technically be defined as a discretionary punishment prescribed by the ruler for crimes committed against Allah or individuals, where there is no fixed penalty nor expiation (Ibn Farhoun, 2002, p.217).
In juveniles' crimes, however, we cannot rely on punishment since juveniles are not capable of withstanding such penalties, and thus we need to concentrate on two elements -rehabilitative and corrective procedures.Rehabilitative procedures can be defined according to Aljundi (1986, p.70) as being "diverse policies that involve varied educational, economic and social procedures against juveniles".Such rehabilitative procedures would be applicable to juveniles aged between 11-15 years old.Additionally, these varied rehabilitative processes can include, but are not limited to, returning the juveniles formally to sound parents/guardians, 12  sending the juveniles to an appropriate vocational, industrial or commerce institutions to be trained, 13 involving the juveniles in certain duties (e.g.attending useful lectures etc.), exercising admonition and reprimand, and finally, depositing the juveniles in social welfare institutions or appropriate hospitals.In short, these rehabilitative processes can derive their legitimacy from Sharia policy as long as they do not breach Sharia interests in upholding goodness and preventing evil (Ibn Alqayim, 2014, p.16).
In contrast, corrective procedures are a bit stronger than rehabilitative ones.Therefore, corrective processes are only applied to juveniles who have committed serious crimes (e.g.murder, Hudud crimes) and those aged 15-18 years old.Further, these corrective procedures can involve some other people (i.e.juveniles' relatives in paying the blood money).Examples of these procedures can include, but are not limited to, financial corrective punishment (e.g.blood money, fines, seizure of property or the item used in the crime, being dismissed from their employment) and negative corrective procedures for freedom (e.g.temporary imprisonment in an appropriate social institution, exile).Please note that the time span for these procedures varies from person to person, and place to place.However, it is the responsibility of the legislative and judicial authorities in Saudi to decide which time span is most beneficial for juveniles, bearing in mind determining an appropriate maximum amount for those procedures in order to employ the principle of individualization of punishments and legislation.Until then, I beg to move a motion in Saudi Shura to discuss these vital matters, since I have identified these problems and suggested some possible solutions for them.
On the other hand, in terms of the maximum amount, jurists are divided into three clusters, relying on some Hadiths.First, some Hanbali scholars (e.g.Ibn Qudamah, 1999) claim that the maximum level for flogging is ten lashes, as, according to the Hadith, "do not inflict more than 10 lashes unless in Hudud crimes" (Bukhari, 1987;Alqushairi, 2013).Secondly, the majority of scholars (e.g.Hanafi and Shafie) believe that it is 39 floggings because it is less than the fixed penalty, which is 40 lashes, for the crime of drinking, according to Hadith: "whoever reaches with his verdict the fixed penalty, then he will be regarded [a] transgressor" (Almawardi, 2013, p.236).
Thirdly, Maliki scholars (e.g.Ibn Farhoun, 2002) are of the view that there should be no maximum amount for flogging because it is a matter for the judge's discretion.Aljundi (1986) tried to arrive at somewhat of a balance, and argues that there should be a maximum amount for flogging in adult crimes (i.e.39 lashes), whereas for minors it should be 10 lashes maximum, because a minor cannot bear flogging.This means that the punishment of lashing must not be applied other than in highly necessary cases, as it should be remembered that all punishment must be as suitable.Consequently, if injuries result from the beating (lashing), then compensation should be due (Aljundi, 1986).Notwithstanding this, I personally call for the abolition of the penalty of lashing

Table 2 .
Gender by Associates Cross-tabulation

Table 2 .
2: Symmetric Measures for Gender by Associates

Table 3 .
Gender by Precedents Cross-tabulation

Table 4 .
Ranks for Sentences_Lashes by Gender

Table 7
The data statistically shows two factors.While there is a statistical significance between the juvenile age groups, on the one hand, and their associates on the other hand, there is no such statistical significance between a juvenile's age group and previous convictions.It can clearly be seen from Table8that there is a strong relationship between juveniles' age groups and associates; the 7-15 age group had 96% associates, the 16-18 age group had 80.5%, and the last group aged 19-30 had 100%.However, there is no strong relation between age group and precedents in Saudi, as can be seen inTables 7.2 and 7.3.

Table 9 .
To explain the output from Tables 9.4-9.6,thereareno violations for SPSS assumptions in Table9.4 as SPSS does not indicate this.The main values that are relevant are the Chi-square, degree of freedom (df) and significance level values; these can be found in the table titled Test Statistics (Table