A Comparative Analysis of Capital Punishment and Severe Sentencing: Legal Frameworks, Organisational Structures, and Outcomes in Saudi Arabia and Scotland

Abstract

As the global discourse on justice systems evolves, the comparative analysis of severe sentencing practices is gaining prominence in criminological research. This thesis investigates the severe punishment practices of Saudi Arabia and Scotland, focusing on their approaches to capital punishment and life imprisonment. Through a literature-based investigation, this research explores the legal frameworks, organisational structures, priorities, and outcomes of both systems to analyse the differences and synergies between these contrasting approaches to justice. The research shows that Saudi Arabia's sharia-based system prioritises adherence to religious principles and deterrence, while Scotland's secular common law tradition emphasises rehabilitation and human rights. These fundamental differences shape their respective approaches to severe punishments. The findings highlight the influence of cultural, religious, and historical factors on the implementation of severe sentences and broader conceptions of justice. The study reveals significant disparities in transparency, accountability, and demographic patterns in sentencing. It also examines each country's adherence to international human rights standards, noting complexities in both systems. This research underscores the need for comparative analysis, emphasising the importance of understanding diverse approaches to punishment in an increasingly globalised world and informing more nuanced, culturally sensitive approaches to severe sentencing. The thesis concludes that including cross- cultural perspectives is crucial for advancing research on punishment systems and criminal justice reform. This approach challenges simplistic notions of superiority in justice systems and emphasises the need for ongoing dialogue to develop fairer, more effective, and more humane punishment practices globally.