Criminal law and criminology
ali reza mir kamali; Javad Mansouri Nalbandan
Abstract
Securitization in criminal policy manifests in multiple dimensions, with the most visible and direct expression being in the conduct and performance of the police force. Police interaction with citizens constitutes one of the primary points of contact between this key institution and the broader ...
Read More
Securitization in criminal policy manifests in multiple dimensions, with the most visible and direct expression being in the conduct and performance of the police force. Police interaction with citizens constitutes one of the primary points of contact between this key institution and the broader community. The nature of these interactions, along with the attitude that police adopt towards the public, significantly influences public satisfaction with law enforcement as well as overall trust in governmental institutions. When police securitization is emphasized excessively—particularly when policies and enforcement measures prioritize government security over the protection of individual rights and fail to align with public expectations—such approaches are often met with public resistance rather than approval. This misalignment not only diminishes public trust but also generates a heightened fear of crime among citizens, particularly the fear of victimization or physical harm. Consequently, the community may become alienated, standing in opposition rather than in solidarity with the police and government. This adversarial relationship severely undermines the effectiveness of criminal policy and law enforcement objectives.In recent years, one of the most contested arenas of police intervention has been related to issues of chastity and hijab enforcement. These areas of moral and cultural concern have increasingly seen security-centric police approaches, which seem to exacerbate citizens’ fear of victimization rather than alleviate it. It is important to emphasize that chastity and hijab, as socio-cultural and moral categories, do not inherently warrant criminal or securitized interventions, especially not through coercive police mechanisms. Their regulation through security-heavy enforcement policies risks creating an atmosphere of fear and social tension rather than fostering compliance through social or cultural consensus.Securitization in criminal policy broadly refers to the trend toward treating social issues, crimes, or normative violations as urgent security threats requiring strict, often punitive measures. Over the last two or three decades, this has been particularly visible in the revival of “return to punishment” movements and the increased application of punitive strategies such as zero-tolerance policing. These approaches emphasize strict law enforcement and harsh penalties, frequently at the expense of legal safeguards and judicial protections. A key moment accelerating this trend was the events following September 11, 2001, which led many governments worldwide to adopt securitized policies, diminishing certain legal and judicial guarantees in the name of heightened security.The police, as the enforcement arm of the criminal justice system, serve a dual role: safeguarding the security of the state while protecting the rights and security of individual citizens. However, the securitization of criminal policy sometimes drives the police to overstep their authorized boundaries, adopting extreme measures that fail to provide a genuine sense of security to citizens. Instead, these actions often generate increased feelings of insecurity and fear, particularly fear of being victimized by crime or even by law enforcement itself. Policies such as zero tolerance and other interventionist approaches—commonly executed by police—have in many cases resulted in widespread public distrust and heightened anxiety within communities.This raises critical questions regarding the consequences of securitized criminal policy and its security-centric focus, especially in policing, on public perceptions of safety. Specifically, how does the securitization of police practices influence citizens’ fear of crime and their fear of victimization? To address this, this study first examines the concept and theoretical components of securitization. It then explores the related concept of fear of crime—often termed fear of victimization—and its psychological and social dimensions. Finally, the study analyzes the interaction between securitized criminal policy, particularly police strategies, and the resulting levels of fear experienced by citizens. This analysis is framed within the broader context of citizenship rights, considering how securitized approaches may infringe on or conflict with these fundamental rights.Understanding this dynamic is crucial because an increase in public fear can paradoxically weaken the very security that securitized policies aim to enhance. When citizens feel threatened or vulnerable to both crime and authoritarian policing, trust in the justice system deteriorates, and social cohesion is undermined. Hence, this study argues that balancing effective crime control with respect for civil liberties and community engagement is essential for sustainable security.In conclusion, while securitization aims to reinforce control and order, its implementation through police practices can inadvertently generate fear and insecurity. Such outcomes undermine the legitimacy of criminal justice institutions and highlight the need for policies that are responsive to public needs and rooted in the protection of rights. Only through such balanced approaches can criminal policy achieve both security and social trust, thereby improving overall public safety and governance.ش
Ebrahim Rajabi Tajamir
Abstract
The global problem of terrorism, which has called on all governments to fight, requires serious measures to prevent security damage in addition to effectively confronting its policymakers. Therefore, resisting terrorism without strategic planning will intensify security measures. Method: The present ...
Read More
The global problem of terrorism, which has called on all governments to fight, requires serious measures to prevent security damage in addition to effectively confronting its policymakers. Therefore, resisting terrorism without strategic planning will intensify security measures. Method: The present research has been applied in terms of collecting information by documentary method and by studying international documents, sources related to the subject and the obtained information has been analyzed descriptively-analytically. Results: The most important components of the target of terrorist attacks; exposure, vitality, symbolism, legitimacy, destructibility, crowdedness, proximity, and ease of access are all chosen by terrorists in a rational process. Conclusion: In fact, each target is assessed in terms of the risk of terrorist attacks and, consequently, with police-oriented strategies such as reducing the target of crime, electronic surveillance, the physical presence of police in hot areas, controlling surveillance, identifying hot spots and potential criminals, designing an anti-terrorism environment and increasing police awareness can all prevent terrorist attacks.
zeinab sheidaeian; Ali Abdollahy
Abstract
Relations between the prosecution service and the police follow different models in accordance with the ruling system- Accusatorial or Inquisitorial-. This paper uses the strategy of logical analysis and library method to introduce hierarchical communication model that is in accordance with inquisitorial ...
Read More
Relations between the prosecution service and the police follow different models in accordance with the ruling system- Accusatorial or Inquisitorial-. This paper uses the strategy of logical analysis and library method to introduce hierarchical communication model that is in accordance with inquisitorial system. This relationship is contrary to the model in accusatorial system, which is regulated by a kind of network interaction. The components of the hierarchy model include:1- broad powers of the prosecutor and governance over the police, 2- limited police powers and 3- obedience of the prosecutor and vertical relations between the prosecutor and the police. This model has the benefits such as coherent organization, certainty and equality in law enforcement, and suffers from damage such as inefficiency in monitoring, ignoring human dimensions, costly, and inflexible relationships. It seems that it is not necessary to endure these damage in the police and prosecution service relationships, because, based on the many other successful experiences of other countries in the world, hierarchical model governing prosecution service and police can be improved by making non-fundamental change. Since the model of Prosecutor's office and police relations in Iran is hierarchical, this paper can improve these relations.
Abstract
Rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", and the transformation of the defendant's cell phone the judicial procedures and former United States newAbstractThe rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", for inspection immediately after his arrest, the defendant is under the capture property until the reasons ...
Read More
Rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", and the transformation of the defendant's cell phone the judicial procedures and former United States newAbstractThe rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", for inspection immediately after his arrest, the defendant is under the capture property until the reasons for the police in charge of crime and security police of the potential risks arising from this property is preserved. Apply this rule in recent years relative to the cell phone with the accused faced hesitations that targets the cause of the this rule does not meet the. This issue has caused different procedures in the United States take shape. But in 2013 in the case of the Wurie argument can be a reflection of the High Court in denying extend this rule to cell phone charged provided that the unique of its kind and the theoretical and practical solutions in other courts and legal systems.KeywordsThe rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", Police, Accused, Cell Phone, Supreme Court of United State.
Nasrin Mehra; Behzad Jahani
Abstract
Arresting suspects and fighting against the disturbers of public order are the duties of police which are done by them as representative of people. However, lawmakers under some circumstance have granted this right to its original owners, i.e. the citizens. That being so, they are entitled to use force ...
Read More
Arresting suspects and fighting against the disturbers of public order are the duties of police which are done by them as representative of people. However, lawmakers under some circumstance have granted this right to its original owners, i.e. the citizens. That being so, they are entitled to use force in order to arrest and hand over accused to the legal authorities. Present article reviews the history, circumstances and scope of citizens intervention regarding the arrest of the accused in the legal system of Iran and England where the origin of the citizen’s arrest theory is. In the common law, citizen's arrest has the historical basis and now citizens of English, in Indictable offences with other circumstances, have the right to arrest the accused. However, in the Iranian legal system and for the first time, the legislator has granted people the right of taking necessary actions in order to prevent the offender from escaping and protecting the crime scene based the Article 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (2014). This right is conditional due to the three conditions: just especial crimes, crime shall be evident and the absence of law enforcers.
