22. 首先，来文方提出，根据第一类，Mahloof 先生在两起案件中遭拘押具有任意性质，因为据称他曾采取的行动并不满足新《刑法》中规定的监禁标准。来文方具体指出，根据新《刑法》关于量刑指南表中规定的可以任何经过授权的惩处方法施加的惩处量问题的第 1004 条，量刑法官可将部分或全部刑期转换成在长度或数额上与监狱刑期具有同等惩处效果的非监禁替代惩处形式。第 1005 条中的表(即惩处方法对照表)确定了每种非监禁惩处方法与特定监狱刑期对应的长度或数额。来文方指出，由此看来，新《刑法》鼓励采用非监禁惩处形式，与此同时仍向公众和受害人保证犯罪人确实能充分得到罪有应得的惩处。
22. Firstly, the source argues that Mr. Mahloof’s detention in both cases is arbitrary under category I, because his alleged actions do not satisfy the criteria for imprisonment set forth in the new Penal Code. The source specifies that under section 1004 of the new Penal Code on the amount of punishment called for in the guideline sentencing table that may be imposed through any authorized punishment method, a sentencing judge may translate some or all of a sentence of imprisonment into an alternative, non-incarcerative form of punishment in lengths or amounts that are the punitive equivalent of the prison term. The table in section 1005 (the punishment method equivalency table) identifies the length or amount of each non-incarcerative method of punishment that is equivalent to a given term of imprisonment. The source notes that the Code therefore encourages the use of non-incarcerative punishment forms, while still assuring the public and victims that offenders are in fact getting the full amount of punishment that they deserve for their offences.