Do harsher punishments in RUU355 violate equality?

Question

Accepted Answer

Harsher Punishments in RUU355 Raise Concerns Regarding Equality Before the Law

The proposed amendments to the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (RUU355) have been presented as a measure that solely increases penalties for existing offences, rather than introducing new ones. However, the proportionality and potential implications of these enhanced punishments raise significant questions about their compatibility with the principle of equality before the law as enshrined in Malaysia's Constitution.
Increased Penalties for Existing Offences

The current amendments to RUU355 focus on augmenting the punishments for offences already within the purview of shariah courts. This approach aims to sidestep constitutional challenges that might arise from the introduction of entirely new criminal categories or the creation of overlapping legal systems. The legislative strategy appears designed to increase the severity of consequences for actions already deemed unlawful under shariah law.
Potential Violation of Article 8 of the Constitution

Concerns have been raised that the original draft of the amendments could have presented a constitutional issue by potentially overlapping with ordinary criminal law. Such overlap could have been interpreted as a contravention of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection. The revised amendments, by focusing solely on increasing penalties for existing shariah offences, attempt to mitigate this specific constitutional argument, though the fundamental question of proportionality remains.
Argument of Inhumane and Disproportionate Punishments

Critics argue that the proposed harsher punishments are inhumane and disproportionate to the offences they target. An example cited suggests that a Muslim individual found guilty of consuming alcohol could potentially face a longer prison sentence than someone convicted of murder. This disparity in sentencing, where penalties for certain shariah offences are seen to exceed those for more severe crimes under civil law, fuels the debate surrounding the fairness and reasonableness of the enhanced penalties.
Underlying Intentions and Future Implications

Despite assurances that the amendments do not constitute the implementation of hudud law, some observers believe these changes represent a preliminary step towards that objective. The argument posits that while RUU355 itself may not be hudud, its passage could pave the way for the eventual introduction of hudud principles into Malaysia's legal framework. This perspective suggests a broader concern about the direction of the legal system and the potential for religious laws to be progressively imposed, eventually affecting all citizens regardless of faith.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Do harsher punishments in RUU355 violate equality?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends