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.
General and exclusive criminal law
Mehdi Zakavi
Abstract
The criminal justice system distinguishes between a person who has committed multiple crimes or violated multiple articles of criminal law with the same behavior. Therefore, the legislator gives the judges the authority to increase the punishment for dealing with such a person. In this regard, the legislator ...
Read More
The criminal justice system distinguishes between a person who has committed multiple crimes or violated multiple articles of criminal law with the same behavior. Therefore, the legislator gives the judges the authority to increase the punishment for dealing with such a person. In this regard, the legislator has left some challenges in the Islamic Penal Law of 2012 that may cause problems in the implementation of these laws in this field; From this point of view, the purpose of the authors is to clarify the ambiguities and problems related to the number of criminal titles that may arise in the implementation phase and to solve them as much as possible to overcome these difficulties. Sentencing is often one of the most challenging issues in general criminal law. The double title (spirit, credit) of the crime as one of the reasons for increasing the punishment is not excluded from the scope of this law. The Criminal Law of the Iranian Parliament distinguishes between a person who violates several articles of the criminal law with one act and a person who violates only one criminal title with his act. Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code was established in a situation where the law states many titles of crimes in criminal crimes, but it has left many challenges. According to the author's statements in this research, the most important challenges are in several issues, among which we can mention the ignorance and doubt in how to recognize serious torture, the ineffectiveness of severe torture and its consequences, how to use sensitivity and punishment. . supplement , and the border between too many titles and too many results. In this book, due to the importance of legislation and legal interpretation, it has been tried to provide answers to resolve these ambiguities. The criminal responsibility of legal entities is recognized in the criminal laws of Iran, and the application of these rules to individuals is not specific to them. Considering the new nature of recognizing the criminal responsibility of these people in Iran's criminal law and the change of Iran's criminal laws from a person-centered perspective to a legal personality, it is difficult to implement multilateral rules. They committed crimes against these people. Among the most important of these problems, we can point out the unity and different punishments for the legal person, which is the subject of Article 20 of the Islamic Penal Law approved in 2012. In addition, in implementing the multi-purpose provisions of Article 134 regarding legal entities, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be limited in determining first the heaviest punishment and then the heaviest punishment and applying two types of punishment for legal entities. Businesses that make it impossible to apply genuine multilateral rules that apply to legal entities such as individuals. A criminal who commits a series of crimes is undoubtedly bound to legal retribution according to the will of the legislator and society. From the point of view of criminology, the multiplicity of crimes of the criminal indicates his dangerous situation, which has been the focus of legislative policies and the issuing of sentences has had ups and downs. This category was a way to reform or intimidate criminals. The Islamic Penal Code approved in 2011 and followed by the Convict Conviction Law in 2019, the last will of the legislator in Iran's law on various types of crimes, is due to the principle of combining punishment with punishment. Changes in the provisions of the previous law, legal doctrine and legal standards of the courts caused serious problems in the adaptation of the judicial system by solving some real problems and precedents. In this way, sometimes the uncertainty of the court's decision in cases where criminals are committed is between the material majority and the moral majority, and the law and principles have not yet been proposed by the lawyers. If in doubt, seek refuge. The purpose of this article is to examine the main problems of the court in practice and during the proceedings.
mohammad sadr touhid-khaneh
Abstract
According to the Afghan Constitution, in the absence of relevant statutory laws, courts shall refer to Hanafi jurisprudence. However, there are other explicit and implied constitutional conditions, which should be taken into consideration, including compliance with the principle of legality ...
Read More
According to the Afghan Constitution, in the absence of relevant statutory laws, courts shall refer to Hanafi jurisprudence. However, there are other explicit and implied constitutional conditions, which should be taken into consideration, including compliance with the principle of legality of crime and punishment, which as one of the most fundamental principles of modern criminal law is guaranteed not only in the current Constitution but also in all the six most recent Afghan constitutions. However, Article 1 of the Afghan Penal Code of 1976 stipulates that it regulates only Tazirat punishments and refers Hodud, Qisas and Diyat punishments to Hanafi jurisprudence. This article is repugnant to these explicit and implied constitutional conditions, and as a “weak law” can be ignored. Generally speaking, although Sharia enjoys a prominent position in the Afghan Constitution, its status is different from the Iranian Constitution, which governs generally and absolutely over all articles of the Constitution itself, as well as over all other laws and regulations. Besides, the legislator’s approach in the subsequent articles of the Afghan Penal Code of 1976 shows that even the legislator himself did not believe deeply in his own Article 1. Moreover, among recent laws, there are some examples that implicitly confirm the fact that Article 1 is not valid.
Jafar Yazdian Jafari
Abstract
In this article I embark on the contrast between individual and national
security in crimes against security. Crimes against the state can be divided
into crimes against existence of state and authority of state. In these crimes
the first victim is the state itself. Crimes against the security are ...
Read More
In this article I embark on the contrast between individual and national
security in crimes against security. Crimes against the state can be divided
into crimes against existence of state and authority of state. In these crimes
the first victim is the state itself. Crimes against the security are located in
the first category. In these crimes accused rights probably are violated by
the state because the state cannot remain neutral. In this regard, firstly I
discuss on the principals of criminal law about crimes against security and
then its legality. Some scholars believe that public interest is a good pretext
to violate the given rights but other scholars firmly assert that no pretext is
welcomed. This research shows that the present criminal regulation of Iran
followed the first approach which has progressed after the revolution
(1979).
