Analysis of the Judicial or Administrative Nature of Criminal Sentencing Execution and Its Consequences

Abstract

The resolution of disputes and the imposition of punishment are judicial matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Following the issuance of a verdict, the execution of the criminal sentence takes place, which is distinct from the adjudication itself. Given that adjudication appears to be confined to resolving disputes and issuing judgments, there is a debate regarding whether the nature of sentence execution is administrative or judicial. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library sources, seeks to answer the question: Is the execution of criminal sentences judicial or administrative in nature? And what are the consequences of this classification? The research findings indicate that, in addition to some jurisprudential perspectives defining adjudication as the establishment and enforcement of rights, the logical value of a judge’s decision lies in resolving disputes, which is inherently contingent upon enforcement and execution. Therefore, execution is an integral part of adjudication, as the enforcement of a ruling gives meaning to the concept of dispute resolution. This is precisely why, in contrast to civil cases, the enforcement of punishment—even in offenses subject to private prosecution—does not require the victim’s consent for implementation. By accepting the judicial nature of sentence execution, the presence of a judge in the execution process, an organized and structured system for enforcement, and the application of fair trial principles—including judicial independence, legality, and judicial impartiality—at this stage become necessary.