The Penal Policy of the Libyan Legislator in the Anti-Cybercrime Law No. 5 of 2022: A Comparative Study between Egyptian and Emirati Legislation
Dr. Masha’allah Othman Mohammad
Associate Professor of Criminal Law
Faculty of Law, University of Benghazi, Libya
Former Dean of the College of Law, Academy of Graduate Studies
Abstract:
Electronic crimes represent the negative aspect of communications and information technology, and threaten many values and interests in society, including the national security of the state, and cause many financial losses. Therefore, various legislations, including Libyan legislation, were keen to establish controls and provisions to combat them, and they succeeded in this to varying degrees. In light of this, the research addresses the Libyan legal regulation of such crimes, the risks of which have increased in recent years, due to rapid technological developments. The research problem is represented in the following question: Has the Libyan legislator agreed in its punitive policy, in Law No. 5 of 2022, regarding combating cybercrimes, in achieving an effective confrontation of cybercrimes? The importance of the research is evident in the novelty of the topic, the lack of studies on this law, in addition to introducing the reader to the legislator’s penal policy. The research aims to know the penalties for natural and legal persons, and to achieve this, the study method was analytical and comparative.
The research revealed the weakness of the punitive policy to confront these crimes, whether for natural or legal persons, as the legislator did not give the judge the discretionary authority to suit the individualization of punishment. The legislator also punishes the attempt with a weak penalty and does not stipulate a harsher punishment for the accomplice. The legislator narrows the scope of responsibility of the person responsible for the actual administration, punishes him with weak penalties, and does not punish him with important penalties such as a fine, publication of the conviction, and a ban on practicing activity. The legislator does not decide the penalty of dissolution except in one case only.
In light of this, the research recommends that the legislator grant the judge discretionary power in assessing the penalty, and establish general conditions for tightening the penalty, in addition to deciding a policy for mitigating and exempting from the penalty, in addition to tightening the responsibility of the legal person.
Keywords: criminal policy, punishment, informatics, crimes, and discretionary power.