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.
General and exclusive criminal law
Ahmadreza Emtehani; ali Mohammadi Jurkuyeh; Javad Nadi Ouj Baghzi
Abstract
The recent implementation of the law aimed at reducing imprisonment penalties, as approved by the legislator, has brought about numerous changes to the principles governing the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment, especially when compared to the regulations in place in 1392. These ...
Read More
The recent implementation of the law aimed at reducing imprisonment penalties, as approved by the legislator, has brought about numerous changes to the principles governing the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment, especially when compared to the regulations in place in 1392. These modifications in the criteria for determining punishment, along with the intensification and reduction of penalties and the rationale behind differentiating between various crimes and their similar counterparts, have presented both judges and legal scholars with a wide range of theoretical and practical challenges. These ambiguities have resulted in divergent interpretations of Article 134 of the Amended Criminal Code, which has, in turn, led to potential harm to the rights of the accused. The central question of this research, therefore, is: What specific ambiguities and challenges are posed by the amended Article 134, and what possible solutions can be offered to resolve them?This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to explore the provisions surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment under the current law. It seeks to analyze the key challenges within this legal framework, which include: distinguishing between different crimes and similar ones, the method of aggregating similar crimes as opposed to different ones, the timing for recognizing multiple crimes for the application of multiplicity rules, the question of whether the rules of material multiplicity apply retroactively in the context of multiple criminal laws, the criteria for establishing material multiplicity concerning the necessity—or lack thereof—of a time gap between multiple offenses, and the simultaneous aggregation of multiplicity and repetition of crimes.The legal provisions addressing the issue of multiple crimes in our country have their roots in French criminal law, dating back to 1304. Over the course of many revisions, the legislator eventually passed new regulations concerning multiple crimes in 2019, followed by a subsequent amendment in 1999 as part of the Law on Reducing the Punishment of Imprisonment. However, due to the widespread application of these provisions in the criminal justice system, they have generated significant practical issues, leading to complications for judges and, consequently, violations of the rights of the accused. This article aims to thoroughly explain the provisions related to the material multiplicity of crimes under the Criminal Code and its amendments, addressing the most pressing challenges associated with this legal institution.By identifying these challenges and proposing solutions to overcome them, this research endeavors to provide clarity through the interpretation of the law and an examination of the legislator’s intentions. Additionally, it aims to ensure alignment with the overarching principles that govern criminal law, thereby proposing a unified approach to criteria and procedural matters in this domain. Offering solutions and resolving scientific and practical ambiguities is one of the most significant contributions of this research, which can greatly benefit the criminal justice system and help achieve the most just outcomes possible.One long-standing issue in the context of punitive measures has been the question of multiplicity of crimes. Multiplicity of crimes is a key aspect of the individualized punishment process and often serves as a reason for the escalation of penalties. General aggravating factors are attributes that are linked to any crime and, when identified by a judge, necessitate an increase in the punishment. These factors are not specific to any one crime but can apply broadly across different offenses. In many countries worldwide, individuals who commit multiple crimes are seen as having a more entrenched delinquent nature, and therefore, a heavier penalty is often imposed to facilitate their rehabilitation. The goal is to reintegrate the offender into society, purified from criminal tendencies and free from the risks of recidivism.In terms of classification, multiplicity of crimes can be divided into two categories: material multiplicity and credit multiplicity. Material multiplicity, also referred to as real or objective multiplicity, occurs when a perpetrator commits two or more independent criminal acts without having received a definitive conviction for any of those offenses. On the other hand, credit multiplicity refers to situations in which an individual commits a single act, but multiple criminal charges can be applied to that single act, and the individual has not received a final conviction for any of those charges. Given that this research is focused specifically on material multiplicity, a more detailed discussion of credit multiplicity and its associated rules will be avoided due to its limited relevance to the scope of this study.In conclusion, the challenges surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes as addressed in the amended Criminal Code are substantial, and the need for clearer legal interpretations and solutions is urgent. By examining the key issues and offering solutions, this research contributes valuable insights into how the judicial system can address these challenges while safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the equitable application of justice. Through careful analysis and proposed reforms, the study aims to facilitate the correct implementation of laws related to material multiplicity, ultimately improving the efficiency and fairness of the criminal justice system.
mohammad ashoori; negin haghighat
Abstract
Acid attack, as an anti-social behaviour, is a serious crime with severe punishment under legal systems.The severe damage caused to the public order, and the harm caused to the victims necessitates severe punishment imposed on the the perpetrator and supportive measures provided for the victim.This paper ...
Read More
Acid attack, as an anti-social behaviour, is a serious crime with severe punishment under legal systems.The severe damage caused to the public order, and the harm caused to the victims necessitates severe punishment imposed on the the perpetrator and supportive measures provided for the victim.This paper examines the measures taken by the newly enacted law in attempt to prevent the commission of this heinous crime and to support victims.By adopting a descriptive and analytical method, this paper considers the legislative background of this crime, and examines its constituent elements under the new law.It examines the effect of aggravation of punishment, prohibition of applying leniency institutions, aggravation of abettor's punishment and adoption of preventive measures in reducing the occurrence of this crime. The paper emphasizes the need to provide physical and psychological support to the victims, which was not provided in previous legislation.The conclusion is that, in spite of the positive steps taken in the newly enacted law, in the sense of increasing the punishment, and providing supportive measures , further measures are still needed to ensure the prevention, and especially situational prevention of this crime such as identification of acid buyers and registration of such transactions
masood bassami
Abstract
Iran's criminal law in the material plurality crime is intended to aggravation of punishment the perpetrators but this is not so much in the immaterial plurality. the recognition of the immaterial plurality of the real is not easy. This difficulty is enhanced by the enactment of the Penal Code 1392 and ...
Read More
Iran's criminal law in the material plurality crime is intended to aggravation of punishment the perpetrators but this is not so much in the immaterial plurality. the recognition of the immaterial plurality of the real is not easy. This difficulty is enhanced by the enactment of the Penal Code 1392 and generates the rule of “plurality of result” because there is a similarity between this two juridical foundations. Therefore, it is imperative to carry out a study of the conditions for the realization of the immaterial plurality. The question of this research is what are the conditions for the realization of immaterial plurality and what is the point of differentiation and sharing with similar titles? The results of this study indicate that the conditions for the realization of the immaterial plurality are numerous; one of the most important of these is committing a unit behavior and violating more than one article of the Criminal law. Also, the most important aspect of differentiation of the immaterial plurality of the plurality of result is that, in the plurality of result from the unit behavior, various results are obtained, but in the immaterial plurality of the unit behavior, the unit result is obtained.
mohamad ebrahim shamsnateri; Farhad Sadeghi
Abstract
The intensification of punishment is always one of the most challenging issues of public criminal law. The multiplicity of titles (spiritual, credit) of crime is also no exception to this rule as a factor in the intensification of punishment. Iran's criminal law policy between a person who deals with ...
Read More
The intensification of punishment is always one of the most challenging issues of public criminal law. The multiplicity of titles (spiritual, credit) of crime is also no exception to this rule as a factor in the intensification of punishment. Iran's criminal law policy between a person who deals with a violation of several articles of criminal law with a person who has violated only one criminal code by acting. Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code has been set up in the form of a multiplicity of offenses punishable by a crime, but has left many challenges. Nevertheless, the author in this research is one of the most important challenges in the field of multiplicity, including: ambiguity and doubt on how to recognize the punishment, the non-enforceability of the punishment and its consequences, how to impose extra punishments, and the boundary between multiplicity and multiplicity of outcome Has been investigated. In this paper, we have tried to provide answers to the questions of lawmaking and interpretation of the law to resolve these ambiguities.
