Criminal law and criminology
ali movahedi; Ali Najafi Tavana; Mohammad Ashouri; parviz Zokaiyan
Abstract
Today, criminal law is often viewed as the primary solution for preventing and addressing many social disorders and deviant or antisocial behaviors. In Iran, following the Islamic Revolution, there has been a significant increase in the criminalization and punishment of various activities. The extensive ...
Read More
Today, criminal law is often viewed as the primary solution for preventing and addressing many social disorders and deviant or antisocial behaviors. In Iran, following the Islamic Revolution, there has been a significant increase in the criminalization and punishment of various activities. The extensive volume of criminal laws, the nature and scope of criminal responses, and the growing prison population indicate that criminal law has become the default response for legislators in many situations. This approach is often referred to as maximal criminalization or security-oriented criminalization. In contrast to this perspective, the notion of minimal criminalization has gained traction in recent years. According to this view, criminal law should not be excessively broad, nor should it criminalize behaviors that are not essential for achieving the state’s binding goals. If other tools and measures can more effectively achieve these goals, criminalization or punishment should not be necessary. Thus, criminal law should be seen as a last resort, employed only when other measures are inadequate. The principle of minimal criminalization, alongside other fundamental principles such as the principle of innocence, necessity, and transparency, has been proposed as a constitutional principle. However, this principle has received limited attention from legislators, making its position in criminal policy highly significant.The concept of criminal policy—often associated with social control—is categorized into four models based on the relationship between crime, deviance, state response, and society: crime-state response, crime-social response, deviance-government response, and deviance-social response. These models give rise to various response patterns, including the state pattern, social pattern, integrated pattern, and zero pattern. Within the state pattern, two sub-patterns emerge: liberal society and the security-oriented government, each responding to crime or deviance in distinct ways based on their ideological foundations.Criminal policy based on the minimal principle advocates for the reduction or abolition of criminal law, replacing it with non-criminal alternatives. This approach favors removing deviant behaviors from the scope of criminal law and avoiding criminal responses for minor offenses. Measures like dejudicialization, decriminalization, and depenalization are central to this perspective. Governments, in turn, can choose between two criminal policies: a minimalist approach to criminalization and punishment, which prioritizes harm reduction, and a maximalist approach based on legal patriarchy, which focuses on strict government control over crime prevention.The Iranian penal system exemplifies the security-oriented government model, which is characterized by broad state intervention in both individual and social life. In this model, the government has the authority to intervene in various aspects of society, often leading to extensive criminalization across all spheres of human interaction. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iranian legislators have criminalized a wide array of behaviors, contributing to the inflation of criminal laws and increasing state involvement in the private lives of individuals. This view is reinforced by institutions such as the Council for Expediency of the System, the Executive Branch, the Assembly of Experts, and the Guardian Council, which expand the scope of criminalization.In contrast, the liberal model limits the scope of criminal law to behaviors that directly harm others and applies minimal intervention, avoiding state intrusion into individuals’ private lives. This model does not criminalize minor deviations from social norms, and it prioritizes the protection of personal privacy. Over the past two decades, as the prison population has increased and criminal cases have multiplied, the Iranian criminal justice system has begun to shift toward a more minimalist approach in criminalization and punishment.The primary outcomes of minimal criminal policy include the use of non-criminal responses before resorting to criminal procedures, as well as decriminalization and depenalization. This principle suggests that punishment should only be applied when other measures have proven ineffective. Additionally, if criminal processes are deemed necessary, a minimal criminal response should be adopted. The use of more severe punishments, whether in terms of their nature or severity, contradicts the principle of minimal criminal law.This article uses a descriptive-analytical method (library study) to present a criminal policy grounded in the minimal principle and compares it with rival policies to illustrate the evolving perspective on legal punishment and judicial sentencing. It explores the permissible scope of criminal intervention and social control, both criminal and non-criminal, as well as repressive and non-repressive methods, and examines the patterns governing them.
Criminal law and criminology
Taher Tohidi; Mohammad Ashouri
Abstract
By reflecting on social relations, the footprints of power will be revealed, and in other words, power has a fluid presence in all matters of human life. Human societies have accepted the power of Mehr by establishing a political system for the order of affairs, and by establishing various institutions, ...
Read More
By reflecting on social relations, the footprints of power will be revealed, and in other words, power has a fluid presence in all matters of human life. Human societies have accepted the power of Mehr by establishing a political system for the order of affairs, and by establishing various institutions, they have tried to manage their affairs. By accepting the principle of separation of powers in a society or sovereign territory, the legislative, executive and judicial institutions will work together in harmony, and it is obvious that these institutions will also be affected by the ruling political context. The institution of criminal legislation in every society will explain the legislative policies and determine the normative boundaries and protect the value models of the citizens, and without a doubt, the determination of this value territory is also a function of power considerations, the foundations of which are established in the general policy of the country. The fluid power in the public policy of a country will determine the direction of the criminalization and punishment processes in the context of legislative criminal policy and with this description, the influence of power on the criminalization and punishment processes will be revealed. Power has manifested itself in different forms and on this basis, the degree of influence on various categories in the administration of a society will also be different. Political power, military power, royal power or religious power, media power and other examples, depending on the type and nature of the ruling regime of a society, can affect the legislative framework and the regime of crimes and punishments against illegal behaviors. Therefore, it is reasonable to maintin that the legislative system will be affected by the context of the ruling power. Realizing that power, whether obtained through legitimate means or through force and domination over subordinates, ultimately affects the legislative system and the processes of criminalization and determining punishments, and this issue will be the beginning of a way to another research: how this affects the institutions responsible for determining crimes and punishments will be determined. On this basis, in terms of revealing the new discourse of influence of power in the hidden layers of the legislative policy of the countries, which in the future and in the hands of the governments, will become a power in the direction of controlling and restraining the subjects that make up the discourse of power, the present article has been written in order to present an answer to the important question of "How does power influence the processes of criminalization and punishment?" Undoubtedly, today, with the ever-increasing development of the "government" institution in its many forms, it has made people see more clearly the influence of economic, military powers at the national and international levels. In some cases, the influence of political power in the approval or non-approval of punitive laws is so obvious that the role of expediency can be clearly seen. Expediency in supporting and protecting the interests of a limited number of people or belonging to a specific group causes the approval of laws that are completely contrary to the criterion of "public interest" and makes the color and shape of some laws so clear that other than protection. It does not serve any purpose of special group interests. It should not be forgotten that in such cases, the law is passed in the name of protecting the interests of the general public of a society. In many cases, it can be seen that in authoritarian government systems, the people are not at all aware of the mass of approved laws, and the people's representatives are also under the direct influence of economic, military, and media power, etc.The question of "How does power affect the processes of criminalization and punishment?" is a question that needs to be analyzed due to the lack of research writings in the scientific bases of the country, and we have tried to understand its hidden layers with an analytical-descriptive method and using theoretical sources. In this regard, uncovering the role of power in the process of criminalization and that the system of crimes and punishments determined for them is itself a function of the foundations of the ruling power, is considered the achievement of the article, because it puts a seal of approval on the fact that; the type and even the amount of crimes are based on the ruling powers and their beliefs, and therefore, it is not always the case that the interest of the individual is the basis of criminalization, and the appeal to the concept of protection of the "public good" is itself a sign of the superiority of political power and its obvious influence in determining the system of crimes and punishments. In other words, in many cases, the political governments of countries act through the system of criminalization-punishment to maintain their power and in this way keep the citizens in the center of power.
Jahandar Akbari; Mohammad Ashouri; Mohammad Ali Ardabili; ali saffaari
Abstract
Death penalty is disputed retribution between the chain of retributions with different execution styles has accompanied humans throughout history with numerous followers and opponents. In the last decades disputes between the followers and opponents between the followers and opponents of this retribution ...
Read More
Death penalty is disputed retribution between the chain of retributions with different execution styles has accompanied humans throughout history with numerous followers and opponents. In the last decades disputes between the followers and opponents between the followers and opponents of this retribution has continued more extensively. The result of these fundamental disputes of the opponents and elimination of this retribution from the criminal law or in some cases, despite keeping it in texts. The execution is eliminated. This article focuses on the death penalty while looking for attaining the philosophy of death penalty by utilizing the two major views of retributivism and utilitarianism in philosophy of retribution and it’s reconciliation with each of the two views mentioned before. The results indicate the although death penalty is mostly accordant to the objectives of utilitarianism like incapacitation and relative compatibility with preventing through intimidation, it is corresponding more with the opponent view that is retributivism. Revocation or undermining the routine futuristic justifications of life deprivation punishment, can help legislator remove or at least limit the punishment.
kamran mahmoudiyan; mohammadali ardebili; mohammad ashouri; nasrin mehra
Abstract
A new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) DadhAym critical rereading. "committing conduct that ...
Read More
A new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) DadhAym critical rereading. "committing conduct that is criminalized by law, is punishable as follows ..." is used, while the same ambiguity in the criminal law of Syria, France A new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) DadhAym critical rereading. "committing conduct that is criminalized by law, is punishable as follows ..." is used, while the same ambiguity in the criminal law of Syria, FranceA new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) DadhAym critical rereading. "committing conduct that is criminalized by law, is punishable as follows ..." is used, while the same ambiguity in the criminal law of Syria, France
ESMAEIL SHAYEGAN; MOHAMMAD ASHOURI
Abstract
The legal system of compensation for damage caused by the arrest of the accused innocent; Research in comparative law and Iranian law. Abstract: In the new Criminal Procedure Act government's responsibility is accepted for damage caused by the arrest of the accused innocent, whether the judge or other ...
Read More
The legal system of compensation for damage caused by the arrest of the accused innocent; Research in comparative law and Iranian law. Abstract: In the new Criminal Procedure Act government's responsibility is accepted for damage caused by the arrest of the accused innocent, whether the judge or other person is responsible for the fault or error. By law In addition to identifying the "right" injured, in a claim for damages suffered due to temporary detention, Special procedure has predicted in order to implement this right. This legislative measures can be interpreted a step towards the realization of a fair trial and respect for the presumption of innocence (Article 37 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran).This Anticipated legal system in the new Criminal Procedure put government as a barrier between the injured party and the offender judge. Accordingly, innocent accused demands the damage caused by the temporary detention from government and the government can refer to the blamable judge after the compensation under the circumstances.
