Criminal law and criminology
Mahdi Sheidaeian; Masoud Hajiyani
Abstract
Contrary to common belief, there is no precise and universally accepted definition of punishment. In fact, many criminal laws, including those of Iran, do not provide a clear definition of punishment, with legislators and some thinkers often assuming it to be an obvious concept. Nevertheless, a variety ...
Read More
Contrary to common belief, there is no precise and universally accepted definition of punishment. In fact, many criminal laws, including those of Iran, do not provide a clear definition of punishment, with legislators and some thinkers often assuming it to be an obvious concept. Nevertheless, a variety of definitions have been proposed, most of which emphasize the element of pain and suffering, with many describing the "painfulness" of punishment as one of its central components. This research aims to redefine punishment within penal systems, using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based data, in order to answer the question: What is the true nature of punishment?The goal of this article is to present a new reinterpretation of the concept of punishment—one that moves beyond the functional and formal aspects of conventional definitions and explores its conceptual and structural foundations. Through a comparative analysis of the concepts of punishment, pain, and violence, it is demonstrated that what is often regarded as an inherent characteristic of punishment—namely, "suffering"—is not a fundamental component, but rather a natural consequence of another action: violence. Violence is understood as an external, intentional act based on an unequal power relationship, aimed at harming, dominating, or imposing one’s will upon another. This structure is shared by punishment, with the key difference being that punishment, in contrast to general violence, is legitimized and formalized by the legal system. In other words, punishment should be regarded as legitimate, structured, and institutionalized violence, applied in the name of justice. Within this framework, "pain and suffering" are not essential to punishment itself, but rather result from its legitimate violence. Although this suffering may be justified by benevolent intentions such as deterrence, correction, or social relief, from a structuralist perspective, it does not alter the inherently violent nature of punishment.Thus, the central hypothesis of this research is affirmed in two ways: first, pain and suffering are not constitutive elements of punishment, but its consequences; and second, the structure of punishment aligns closely with that of violence—differing only in its intentional, structured, and legally sanctioned application.The redefinition of punishment, if taken seriously, is not merely a theoretical exercise; it directly impacts how we understand and organize penal systems, criminal policy, judicial reforms, and even the concept of "justice" itself. If we accept that punishment is inherently a form of violence, we are confronted with the difficult moral question of whether intentionally inflicting suffering on a human being, even under the guise of law, is justifiable. Moreover, this redefinition highlights that the consequences of punishment extend beyond the individual offender; society itself becomes complicit in the cycle of suffering and harm that punishment perpetuates. This challenges the stated goals of punishment and raises doubts about their actual effectiveness. It is possible that part of the persistent failure of punitive systems lies in the fact that punishment, at its core, is organized violence, and violence—whether it is employed in the name of deterrence, correction, or order—rarely yields constructive or restorative outcomes.As such, attention is shifting away from punishment as the primary solution and toward the search for less violent, more humane alternatives. Restorative justice, which focuses on repair, reconciliation, and reintegration of both victims and offenders into society, offers one such alternative. This approach seeks to break the cycle of punishment and revenge. It is also aligned with ideas such as the "right not to be punished" and the "right to rational punishment," providing a theoretical framework for rethinking criminal policy. On a deeper level, redefining punishment necessitates addressing the root causes of crime—such as poverty, discrimination, and structural inequalities—that are often marginalized in traditional discussions of criminal justice.In conclusion, if we regard punishment as a legal form of violence, then pain and suffering cease to be its "essence" and become instead the consequence of violence that is applied in a systematic and legitimate manner. Punishment, in this view, is a deliberate, structured, and institutionalized violence labeled as justice. Therefore, the final recommendation of this research is that any discussion of criminal justice must be accompanied by an awareness of the violence inherent in punishment. Efforts to minimize this violence at the levels of law, the judiciary, and enforcement should become a central concern for policymakers. Redefining punishment and acknowledging the violence it entails should be seriously considered in the pursuit of more effective and humane justice.
Criminal law and criminology
Mohammd Farajiha; Sanaz Ganjkhanlou
Abstract
This study addresses a significant gap in Iran’s criminal justice system concerning women who commit crimes under conditions of coercion and unequal power dynamics within marriage. "Marital coercion" refers to situations in which a woman is forced, through threats, intimidation, violence, or sustained ...
Read More
This study addresses a significant gap in Iran’s criminal justice system concerning women who commit crimes under conditions of coercion and unequal power dynamics within marriage. "Marital coercion" refers to situations in which a woman is forced, through threats, intimidation, violence, or sustained psychological manipulation by her husband, to engage in unlawful acts. While many legal systems worldwide recognize this form of coercion—either as an independent defense or within broader doctrines of duress, compulsion, or diminished responsibility—Iranian criminal law lacks an explicit provision for it. The only relevant legal framework is the general concept of duress, which imposes strict evidentiary requirements and fails to account for the gendered realities of marital power dynamics. As a result, the experiences of women coerced by their husbands rarely find adequate representation in judicial decisions.Using a qualitative methodology, this research explores how Iranian judges interpret the criminal responsibility of women who commit crimes under marital coercion. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and document analysis, involving 21 female offenders or women at risk of offending, as well as judges from Tehran and Zanjan. Additionally, 10 criminal case files involving female defendants were reviewed. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed judicial reasoning patterns, operational definitions of coercion, and judges' sensitivity (or lack thereof) to gendered dynamics within marital relationships.Findings show that Iran’s criminal justice system rarely acknowledges the structural and relational contexts that lead women to commit crimes under coercion. Most judges view marital relationships as inherently non-coercive and interpret duress narrowly, focusing solely on physical threats of immediate harm. They generally do not recognize threats like divorce, economic dependence, social stigma, child custody, or psychological control as sufficiently serious to negate criminal responsibility. This perspective overlooks the lived experiences of women trapped in long-term, subtle, but powerful mechanisms of control that do not align with the male-centered, incident-based legal definition of duress.A smaller group of judges acknowledges that coercion within marriage may drive women toward criminal behavior. However, they argue that the absence of explicit legal recognition of marital coercion prevents them from mitigating or eliminating criminal liability. These judges express that, without legislative backing, they cannot rely on gender-sensitive interpretations, even when they believe the woman had little or no autonomy in committing the offense. The lack of a clear legal provision forces them to treat coerced women in the same way as fully autonomous offenders.A third, more pragmatic group of judges adopts a flexible approach. Although they cannot formally accept "marital coercion" as a legal defense, they use existing tools like mitigation, suspension, or postponement of punishment to issue fairer judgments in cases where a woman’s involvement in crime is clearly shaped by her husband’s coercive control. These judges exercise contextual interpretation, judicial discretion, and a recognition of the woman’s social, psychological, and economic vulnerability. This approach implicitly acknowledges the relevance of gender and power dynamics, even without explicit statutory guidance.The women interviewed in this study often described experiences of physical abuse, emotional manipulation, economic control, threats to their children, and fear of social stigma—factors that made refusing their husbands’ demands seem impossible. Many had attempted to seek help from law enforcement or judicial authorities, only to have their complaints dismissed as private marital disputes. The failure of authorities to intervene in cases of domestic violence effectively silences women and reinforces the cycle of coercion. When these women later face criminal charges, their earlier victimization is rarely acknowledged, further marginalizing them within the legal system.Analysis of case files reveals that the law’s gender-neutral approach to duress fails to account for the specific forms of coercion that women commonly face in patriarchal societies. Threats such as divorce, loss of custody, social humiliation, or homelessness may be legally dismissed as insignificant, but for many women, these threats carry significant psychological weight. Iranian courts often demand evidence of imminent physical harm, disregarding the cumulative nature of coercive control and its gradual erosion of a woman’s agency.Comparative legal analysis shows that jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Hong Kong, and Scotland have increasingly recognized coercive control and marital duress as grounds for reduced or eliminated criminal responsibility. Doctrines such as the "battered woman syndrome" or diminished responsibility help courts contextualize women's behavior within abusive relationships. In contrast, Iranian law lacks any doctrinal or procedural mechanism to integrate these realities into judicial decision-making.The study concludes that the failure to recognize marital coercion in Iranian criminal law results in significant injustices for women who commit crimes under conditions of domination, fear, and dependency. The absence of a gender-sensitive legal framework misidentifies victims as perpetrators and disregards the structural inequalities that shape women’s paths to crime. The research recommends that a doctrine of marital coercion, or at least the allowance for diminished responsibility in coerced cases, would enhance fairness in Iran’s criminal justice system. Until legislative reform occurs, judges can mitigate punishment by applying broader interpretations of existing legal concepts and exercising their discretionary powers.The findings underscore an urgent need for legal reform and judicial training to incorporate gender-sensitive perspectives into criminal adjudication. Recognizing marital coercion would promote justice for women and support broader societal efforts to combat domestic violence, reduce coercive control, and protect vulnerable individuals within intimate relationships.
Criminal law and criminology
Mostafa Yeganeh; َAbdolAli Tavajohi
Abstract
The criminal liability of a partner for committing the two crimes of aggressive appropriation and destruction of common property is an issue that has long been controversial in the Iranian legal system. The following study, focusing on the judicial practice of Tehran province over the past decade, faces ...
Read More
The criminal liability of a partner for committing the two crimes of aggressive appropriation and destruction of common property is an issue that has long been controversial in the Iranian legal system. The following study, focusing on the judicial practice of Tehran province over the past decade, faces the following questions: “How does the judicial practice of this province comply with the legislator’s opinion regarding the crime of aggressive appropriation of common property after the enactment of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392?” Also, “To what extent is the judicial practice of the targeted province regarding the crime of destruction of common property in line with the unanimous decision of the Court of Procedure No. 10 dated 21/07/1355?” The findings indicate that the situation of the judicial practice of Tehran province over the past decade regarding the crime of aggressive appropriation of common property by one of the partners is not desirable. Furthermore, considering the aforementioned unanimous ruling, the judicial procedure of this province regarding the crime of destruction of common property also lacks the necessary alignment with this ruling in some cases.
Criminal law and criminology
Kamran Mahmoudiyan
Abstract
One of the most fundamental and yet challenging issues in the philosophy of criminal law is understanding the relationship between morality and law, and determining the limits of the moral legitimacy of criminalization. In this context, Aristotelian moral philosophy—centered on concepts such as ...
Read More
One of the most fundamental and yet challenging issues in the philosophy of criminal law is understanding the relationship between morality and law, and determining the limits of the moral legitimacy of criminalization. In this context, Aristotelian moral philosophy—centered on concepts such as eudaimonia, virtue, and justice—provides important theoretical resources for grounding the principles of criminalization. However, common interpretations of Aristotle often suggest that he advocates a complete overlap between individual morality and legal regulation. A careful examination of his works, particularly within the framework of justice theory, reveals a clear and essential distinction between moral faults and legal faults.This study critically reexamines Aristotle’s conception of justice as a form of virtue, to clarify this distinction and explore its implications for the foundations of criminalization. The central question of this article is to investigate Aristotle’s theory of justice in relation to virtue, and to derive its implications for criminal law. The objectives of the study are: first, to explore the relationship between individual virtue and social justice within Aristotle’s ethical-political system; second, to analyze the role of key Aristotelian ethical concepts—such as good intention, the mean, practical wisdom (phronesis), and justice—in determining the limits of legislation; and third, to clarify the fundamental distinction between moral faults and legally punishable acts from Aristotle’s perspective. Ultimately, the study aims to establish the criterion of “harm to others” as the cornerstone of the legitimacy of criminalization in the Aristotelian framework.The research employs an analytical-critical methodology, drawing primarily from Aristotle’s key texts, particularly the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. The methodology involves conceptual analysis of virtue ethics, logical deduction of its implications for criminal law, and critique of reductionist interpretations of Aristotelian justice. An interdisciplinary approach, bridging moral philosophy and the philosophy of criminal law, is also utilized.The findings indicate that Aristotelian ethics, with its emphasis on eudaimonia as the ultimate goal of human life, conceives virtue as a dispositional state grounded in conscious choice and situated within the mean between extremes. The full realization of virtue requires the simultaneous presence of good intention and right action, meaning that ethical judgment ultimately depends on the agent’s motivation. Key concepts in this ethical system—such as the mean, which is context- and person-dependent, and practical wisdom (phronesis), the capacity to discern the right course of action in particular circumstances—are inherently agent-centered and situational. Consequently, Aristotelian ethics cannot directly provide a basis for fixed legal rules, since determining the right action requires the judgment of a virtuous agent (phronimos) in a specific context, and cannot be reduced to universal principles.Justice, in this framework, serves as the bridge between virtue and law. Aristotle distinguishes between general (universal) justice and particular (specific) justice. General justice refers to complete virtue in relation to others and conformity with the law, thus defining the scope of legislation and criminalization. Particular justice, on the other hand, is divided into distributive justice—concerned with the allocation of resources and positions based on merit—and corrective or rectificatory justice, aimed at restoring balance after harm has occurred. Crucially, from Aristotle’s perspective, the domain of law is defined by the criterion of “harm to others.” In other words, legitimate legislation is not intended to guide individual morality, but rather to preserve collective well-being and prevent harm to others. This criterion establishes a clear boundary between moral faults—concerned with individual character—and legal faults or punishable acts.The study demonstrates that Aristotle does not conflate individual morality with law. Certain acts, such as murder, theft, and adultery, may be regarded as “pre-legal” or “intrinsically wrong” because they inherently disrupt human relations, regardless of positive law. Therefore, the central criterion for criminalization in the Aristotelian framework is objective harm to others, or the undermining of the common good and the conditions necessary for societal flourishing. This perspective explicitly rejects legal paternalism, which involves government intervention solely for individual welfare without harm to others.Although practical wisdom is an individual attribute, mechanisms can be devised to institutionalize it within legislation and adjudication. The legislator, acting as a phronetic agent, can identify and criminalize public vices—collective patterns of behavior harmful to society—while considering the common good and citizens’ flourishing. Likewise, judges can assess intent, conscious choice, and situational factors through practical wisdom to determine the extent of criminal liability. Thus, virtue theory informs not only the definition of criminal acts but also the assessment of legal responsibility.In conclusion, Aristotelian virtue ethics, despite being agent-centered and context-sensitive, provides a coherent moral foundation for criminalization through the lens of justice and the central criterion of “harm to others.” In this framework, legitimate criminal legislation rests on two pillars: first, the criminalization of intrinsically harmful pre-legal acts, such as murder and theft; and second, the criminalization of public vices that objectively undermine collective welfare and citizens’ potential for flourishing. This approach, by avoiding both moral relativism and legal paternalism and by clearly distinguishing between individual ethics and law, offers a balanced and coherent solution to the problem of criminalization. In this model, the practical wisdom of legislators and judges replaces rigid, inflexible rules without leading to subjectivism or arbitrariness in law.
Criminal law and criminology
Meysam Abbasi Lahroudi; Mohammad Rasaei; Mohammad Bahrami Khoshkar; Seyyed Abolghasem Naghibi
Abstract
Identity theft has become a prominent issue in both media and public discourse and is recognized as one of the fastest-growing crimes globally. It is a national and international concern and often plays a central role in transnational crimes. Typically committed for the purpose of fraud, identity theft ...
Read More
Identity theft has become a prominent issue in both media and public discourse and is recognized as one of the fastest-growing crimes globally. It is a national and international concern and often plays a central role in transnational crimes. Typically committed for the purpose of fraud, identity theft involves an individual using another person’s identity without their knowledge, posing a major challenge in the digital age. While identity-related crimes are not new, the digital era's increased access to and reliance on personal information has significantly facilitated their rise and ease of execution.Perpetrators commonly use stolen personal information to withdraw money from bank accounts, open new accounts, or access services such as healthcare under the victim's identity. One of the most alarming aspects of identity theft is the broad spectrum of potential victims—including governments, companies, and individuals across all ages, genders, educational backgrounds, and income levels. The consequences can be severe, ranging from financial loss and psychological harm to a damaged credit rating, false criminal records, and extensive time and effort required to restore one's financial and legal standing.In Australia, identity crime has recently emerged as a pressing issue within the criminal justice system, imposing significant costs on the national economy and often serving as a facilitator for more serious offences such as terrorism and human trafficking. In response, Australian authorities have undertaken considerable efforts to study identity crime and develop relevant laws at both federal and state levels.This article represents the first study in our country to examine Australian laws on identity crime. By focusing on the criminalization of identity theft, the research contributes to broader criminal law scholarship. Analyzing the current legal frameworks used to prosecute identity crimes is essential for developing effective deterrents and guiding law enforcement responses. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library resources, this study explains the concept of identity theft, explores the principles underpinning its criminalization, critically reviews Australian statutes, highlights the key features of different legal approaches, and identifies fundamental differences across jurisdictions.The study’s findings indicate that, despite increasing concern about the damaging consequences of identity theft, Australian jurisdictions have not yet fully criminalized the offence. Instead, the legal focus remains on preventing broader social harm through predicate offences—such as possessing or trading identity information—that lack clear mental elements tied to the accused's intent. These offences are not only overly broad in scope but also rest on a problematic theoretical foundation centered around the mere possession of information. This breadth shifts the responsibility of defining criminal boundaries from legislators to law enforcement, which risks undermining core principles of fairness and justice in criminal law. Consequently, secondary offences may overshadow the primary crimes they are meant to support.Systematic efforts are needed to clearly define prohibited activities and avoid vague or misleading terminology. There must be a careful balance between protecting society and avoiding over-criminalization. To that end, lawmakers should provide clear, rational justifications for criminalizing specific behaviors. A standardized legal definition of identity crimes—something international bodies have yet to achieve—is crucial. Such a definition should incorporate the essential elements of identity crimes, including acquisition, production, transfer, possession, and use of identity information. Establishing this foundation is vital for understanding identity theft and formulating effective prevention, prosecution, and compensation strategies.
Criminal law and criminology
Yaser Hajipour
Abstract
The principle of territoriality has long been regarded as a cornerstone of criminal law. According to this principle, a state’s authority to enforce its criminal laws is confined to its own territory, and individuals within that territory are considered equal before the law. This concept reflects ...
Read More
The principle of territoriality has long been regarded as a cornerstone of criminal law. According to this principle, a state’s authority to enforce its criminal laws is confined to its own territory, and individuals within that territory are considered equal before the law. This concept reflects both the sovereignty of the state and the foundational value of legal equality, ensuring that all persons—regardless of status, nationality, or position—are subject to the same legal standards within a given jurisdiction. Thus, territoriality is not merely a technical rule but a vital safeguard for fairness, consistency, and legitimacy in criminal justice.Despite its theoretical soundness, the practical application of territorial criminal law faces substantial challenges. Modern criminal justice systems must address a wide spectrum of offenses, from minor infractions to complex, transnational crimes. However, law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional institutions often operate under significant constraints, including personnel shortages, financial limitations, and disparities in institutional capacity. Regional diversity further exacerbates these issues: some areas experience high rates of specific crimes (e.g., drug trafficking, cybercrime), while others contend with property crimes or violence linked to socio-economic conditions. Geographic heterogeneity—urban-rural divides, border regions, and remote communities—adds further complexity to the uniform enforcement of criminal law.These realities reveal that a strictly centralized criminal justice system may not operate effectively or equitably across all parts of a state. A one-size-fits-all approach risks inefficiencies, overburdening some regions while leaving others underserved. It may also foster perceptions of inequality, as citizens in different areas experience varied levels of legal protection and institutional responsiveness. The central research question of this study is therefore: how can the formal unity of national criminal law be reconciled with the practical necessity for regionally differentiated enforcement mechanisms?This article proposes a novel framework that addresses these issues without compromising the unity of the national legal order. The key idea is that, while criminal law should remain uniform across the state, its practical enforcement should be regionally organized based on three core indicators: The diversity and hierarchical importance of crimes within a region. Understanding the most prevalent and socially harmful crimes in each area is essential for rational resource allocation; the availability of resources and human capital in each region. Regional disparities in qualified judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and correctional staff necessitate tailored administrative strategies; geographical distinctiveness, such as differences between metropolitan areas, rural provinces, and border regions, which demand differentiated operational approaches.Based on these indicators, a political-judicial management system can be designed that allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness. This system does not fragment the national legal order but instead introduces an adaptive administrative layer that aligns the enforcement of criminal law with local conditions while remaining grounded in shared legal principles. A structured model of regional administration can improve efficiency, reduce systemic bottlenecks, and promote fairness.The contribution of this study lies in bridging the gap between normative legal principles and practical constraints. While legal scholarship has focused extensively on the formal requirements of territoriality and equality, less attention has been paid to the concrete difficulties of implementing these principles in diverse regional contexts. By emphasizing the importance of regionally adaptive administration within a unitary legal framework, this article offers a pathway for reconciling idealistic legal values with on-the-ground realities. Methodologically, the study employs a comparative and analytical approach, drawing on criminal law theory, public administration, legal geography, and case studies from jurisdictions that have experimented with regional autonomy in judicial administration.The expected outcomes of such a system are multifaceted. First, it would increase efficiency by channeling resources to areas of greatest need, thereby reducing delays and case backlogs. Second, it would promote equity by ensuring that individuals in different regions receive comparable levels of legal protection, even if administrative models differ. Third, it would enhance legitimacy, as citizens would perceive the justice system as more responsive to their specific circumstances. Finally, it would create a more resilient system—better equipped to address emerging forms of crime, such as cybercrime and transnational offenses, which often vary significantly across regions.In conclusion, while the territorial application of criminal law remains indispensable as a foundational principle, the realities of contemporary governance demand a more nuanced, regionally sensitive approach to enforcement. By organizing the administration of criminal justice around the diversity of crimes, the availability of resources, and geographical particularities, states can enhance both the effectiveness and legitimacy of their legal systems. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that territoriality and regionalization are not mutually exclusive but rather mutually reinforcing principles that form the basis of a balanced, equitable, and sustainable model of criminal justice in the twenty-first century.
Criminal law and criminology
Reza Abolhassani; Tahmoores Bashirieh; mahdi yousefi sadeghloo
Abstract
Over the past century, sport has increasingly become a significant arena of scholarly inquiry within the humanities and social sciences. Growing recognition of its social, cultural, political, and economic importance has led to the development of specialized subfields such as sports sociology, sports ...
Read More
Over the past century, sport has increasingly become a significant arena of scholarly inquiry within the humanities and social sciences. Growing recognition of its social, cultural, political, and economic importance has led to the development of specialized subfields such as sports sociology, sports geography, sports history, sports law, sports politics, the political sociology of sport, and cultural studies of sport. Each of these fields has contributed valuable insights into the ways sport intersects with broader social structures and cultural dynamics. Yet, within this expanding body of research, the field of sports criminology remains comparatively underdeveloped. Unlike sports sociology or sports law, which have achieved relatively autonomous academic status, sports criminology has often been overshadowed by these more established disciplines. As a result, core criminological concerns—crime prevention, criminal justice processes, and mechanisms of social control—have not been systematically examined in the context of sport.This research identifies a critical gap, particularly concerning organizational or organized crime in sport. Although organized crime has long been central to criminological analysis and criminal law, its manifestations within sport have not received adequate scholarly attention. The concept of organized crime—with its focus on structured group activity, continuity, hierarchy, and illicit profit—offers significant analytical utility. Nevertheless, despite the recognized importance of organizational features from both legal and criminological perspectives, international scholarship has shown limited interest in defining or analyzing how these characteristics appear in sport. International bodies, for their part, have yet to articulate a comprehensive framework for identifying the distinctive attributes of organized corruption within the sporting domain.Against this backdrop, the present study was designed with a dual purpose: first, to identify the essential characteristics of organized corruption in sport; and second, to interpret these characteristics through established criminological theories. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method, relying on library-based sources including academic books, journal articles, reports from international organizations, and relevant legal instruments. By synthesizing insights from these materials, the study aims to develop a robust analytical framework for understanding organized corruption in sport and to highlight potential directions for effective prevention and control.The findings show that organized corruption in sport possesses both substantive and procedural features that distinguish it from other forms of crime. Notable attributes include the pursuit of profit—often realized through manipulation of betting markets and the financial exploitation of sport’s global popularity; the involvement of legal entities and corporations as active participants or facilitators of illicit schemes; the structural role of betting and gambling systems as enablers of corrupt behavior; and the persistence of non-criminal forms of corruption that, although not prosecutable, nonetheless erode sporting integrity and pave the way for criminal conduct. These features underscore the complexity of the phenomenon, which straddles the boundary between legality and illegality, public perception and legal sanction, individual culpability and organizational responsibility.From a theoretical standpoint, the study demonstrates that organized corruption in sport can be fruitfully analyzed through a range of criminological perspectives. Strain theory illuminates how structural pressures within professional sport—particularly the intense emphasis on success and financial gain—create conditions conducive to deviance. The theory of planned behavior explains how attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control shape decisions to engage in corrupt practices. Rational choice theory highlights the calculated assessment of risks and benefits that makes organized corruption appear profitable despite potential sanctions. The neoliberal paradigm draws attention to the ways market-oriented ideologies, commercialization, and deregulation generate fertile conditions for exploitation and criminal infiltration. Finally, frameworks grounded in social harm theory expand the conceptualization of corruption to include harmful practices that undermine trust, fairness, and the cultural value of sport.The analysis ultimately demonstrates that organized corruption in sport is neither isolated nor marginal; rather, it is a systemic challenge deeply intertwined with broader social, economic, and political processes. Its transnational character—with activities spanning jurisdictions, involving multinational corporations, and exploiting global financial and digital systems—complicates regulatory responses. This reality highlights the inadequacy of traditional, domestically oriented approaches to crime control and underscores the need for innovative, cooperative, and interdisciplinary strategies.In terms of policy implications, the study argues for several strategic measures. First, the development of educational programs tailored to athletes, coaches, administrators, and supporters is crucial for raising awareness of the risks and consequences of organized corruption. Second, a comprehensive international convention specifically targeting organized corruption in sport is needed to provide a unified legal framework and facilitate cross-border cooperation. Third, the definition of corruption itself requires reconceptualization—expanding beyond narrow criminal classifications to encompass the broader spectrum of harmful practices that undermine sporting integrity. Such a broadened definition would enable policymakers and scholars to capture more accurately the full range of activities that threaten fairness, transparency, and trust in sport.In conclusion, this study underscores the urgency of integrating criminological perspectives into the study of sport and addressing organized corruption as a distinct and pressing issue. By situating the problem within criminological theory, identifying its unique characteristics, and proposing practical solutions, the research contributes to bridging a longstanding gap in both scholarship and policy. Given sport’s global cultural influence and vast resources, it demands analytical frameworks capable of safeguarding its integrity. The findings suggest that combating organized corruption in sport requires not only legal instruments but also interdisciplinary engagement, theoretical innovation, and sustained international collaboration.
Criminal law and criminology
zeynab Riazat; Zahra Ahmadi Natour
Abstract
Economic stability is a cornerstone of the legal and social order in any society, and its absence can lead to multifaceted problems for governments. Consequently, criminal policymakers worldwide, including in Iran, have consistently endeavored to combat economic crime as a complex phenomenon that disrupts ...
Read More
Economic stability is a cornerstone of the legal and social order in any society, and its absence can lead to multifaceted problems for governments. Consequently, criminal policymakers worldwide, including in Iran, have consistently endeavored to combat economic crime as a complex phenomenon that disrupts a nation's economic structures. However, Iran's criminal policy faces significant ambiguity, challenges, and inefficiencies across various dimensions, including the definition, scope, and legal examples of economic crimes; establishing the conditions for the realization of the crime; the possibility of issuing interim orders; jurisdictional issues; and statutes of limitations. This research, conducted with a descriptive-analytical approach and library-based methodology, aims to identify and analyze these challenges within Iran's legislative and judicial criminal policy framework.The study's findings indicate that the core of the inefficiency lies in the fundamental ambiguity at the legislative stage, particularly the lack of a clear, comprehensive, and consensus-based definition of "economic crime." This primary ambiguity creates a domino effect, cascading into and crippling the subsequent judicial process. Conceptual and Exemplary Ambiguity in Legislative Criminal Policy: The Epicenter of the CrisisThe most significant challenge in Iran's legislative criminal policy is the absence of a precise, criteria-based legal definition for economic crime. The Iranian legislature has employed scattered and often contradictory laws, such as the Islamic Penal Code (2013), the Law on Combating Smuggling of Goods and Currency, and the Law on Punishment of Disruptors of the Economic System, without providing a unified conceptual framework. Key terms like "disruption of the country's economic system," "financial crime," and "economic corruption" are used interchangeably and vaguely.This ambiguity is starkly evident in the Islamic Penal Code (2013). For instance:• The Note of Article 36 lists specific crimes (e.g., embezzlement, bribery, smuggling, disruption of the economic system) requiring mandatory publication of verdicts, without explicitly labeling them "economic crimes."• Article 47 prohibits the suspension of sentencing for "economic crimes where the subject of the crime exceeds 10 billion."• Article 109(b) excludes from statutes of limitations "economic crimes, including fraud and the crimes subject to the Note of Article 36 of this law, observing the amount stipulated in that article."This legislative approach has spawned a central ambiguity: Are the crimes listed in the Note of Article 36 inherently "economic," with the monetary thresholds in Articles 47 and 109 merely triggering specific punishments? Or is reaching a specific financial threshold (e.g., 100 billion for Article 109) the primary criterion for an offense to be considered an "economic crime"? This lack of clarity has led to divergent opinions among legal scholars and practitioners.Furthermore, the list of examples in the law is neither comprehensive nor precise. Crucial and emerging economic offenses, such as capital market crimes, specific banking offenses, cyber-economic crimes, consumer rights violations, and large-scale environmental crimes, are omitted. This omission means that many destructive behaviors escape the stringent criminal policies reserved for economic crimes, such as the non-applicability of statutes of limitations.Even within the listed examples, significant interpretive ambiguities persist regarding their scope, including their application to attempted crimes and complicity, the inclusion of various types of fraud, the scope of embezzlement, the ambiguities surrounding the crime of influence peddling, and the applicability of these laws to crimes committed by the armed forces.Recent reform bills, such as the Bill on Combating Economic Crimes, have attempted to address these issues by removing vague phrases such as “and the like” and providing a more exhaustive list of examples. However, these efforts have failed to address the core problem, as they continue to rely on an exemplary approach rather than establishing a clear, overarching criterion.2. The Cascading Judicial Consequences of Legislative AmbiguityThe ambiguities in legislation directly translate into serious operational challenges within the judicial system, leading to a fragmented and inconsistent criminal policy in practice.2.1. Divergence of Judicial OpinionsThe most prominent judicial challenge is the lack of consensus in judicial precedent regarding the conditions and elements of economic crimes, particularly the "intent of the perpetrator" and the interpretation of "disruption of the economic system." This is vividly illustrated in high-profile cases. For example, in the "Sultan of Coin" case, the court deemed proving the widespread disruptive result sufficient for a conviction of "corruption on earth," whereas in other similar cases, judges have required the "intent to counter the system" as a necessary condition. This inconsistency, stemming from the absence of a clear criterion to distinguish an "ordinary economic crime" from a "system-disrupting economic crime," leads to disparate sentencing and violates the principle of equality before the law.2.2. Determination of Competent AuthorityA major procedural challenge is confusion over jurisdictional competence between general criminal courts and the Revolutionary Courts. Disputes often arise regarding which court should hear cases of "disruption in the economic system," leading to protracted legal battles, preliminary rulings on lack of jurisdiction, and significant delays in proceedings, ultimately undermining the efficiency of justice.2.3. Statutes of LimitationsThe legislative ambiguity surrounding the definition and examples of economic crimes creates a two-fold problem regarding statutes of limitations under Article 109. First, there is uncertainty about whether the list is exhaustive. Second, the law fails to specify the critical time for assessing the financial threshold (e.g., one billion)—whether it is the time of the crime's commission or the time of its discovery. This is particularly problematic for crimes like fraud that may remain undetected for years. Judicial practice generally favors the time of commission, but the lack of explicit legal provision causes disputes.2.4. Interim Criminal OrdersA significant procedural gap is the absence of an explicit legal mechanism for interim criminal orders in the Code of Criminal Procedure (2012). In economic crimes, where swift action is often needed to freeze assets, suspend suspicious bank payments, or prevent the dissipation of public funds, judges lack clear legal authority to issue such urgent orders. This forces them to resort to broad interpretations of existing, often inadequate, laws, resulting in judicial practice based on personal discretion rather than a standardized procedure. This legal vacuum allows perpetrators valuable time to hide or transfer assets, severely hampering effective enforcement.2.5. Reliance on the Principle of Independence (in Banking Instruments)A complex challenge arises at the intersection of economic crime and commercial law, specifically concerning banking instruments like letters of credit and bank guarantees. The principle of independence, which dictates that the bank's payment obligation is separate from the underlying contract, often clashes with the discovery of fraud. While this principle is crucial for commercial certainty, its rigid application—without explicit statutory recognition of "fraud" as an exception—can be exploited by economic criminals. Iranian judicial practice shows significant divergence in handling cases where fraudulent documents are presented, with some courts upholding the principle of independence and ordering payment, while others acknowledge the fraud and initiate criminal proceedings. This lack of a unified approach creates a dangerous legal loophole.Conclusion and RecommendationsThis study conclusively demonstrates that the inefficiency of Iran's criminal policy against economic crimes is not incidental but rooted in a fundamental cause: the lack of a transparent conceptual framework and a criteria-based definition at the legislative stage. The current approach, characterized by scattered, incomplete, and ambiguous exemplary lists, is itself a source of perpetual ambiguity that cascades into the judicial system, causing divergence in opinions, jurisdictional conflicts, and procedural inefficiencies.The proposed solution is not piecemeal amendments but a paradigm shift toward a criteria-based criminal policy. The core recommendations are:Formulate a Criteria-Based Definition: The legislature, in collaboration with experts, must prioritize establishing a comprehensive and reliable definition of economic crime based on the "protected value" (macro-economic order) and "diagnostic criteria" (e.g., scale of damage, extensiveness of effects, and context of commission).Shift from an Exemplary to a Criteria-Based Approach: Instead of relying on exhaustive and perpetually incomplete lists, the law should provide a general framework based on a result-oriented criterion (e.g., "any act or omission that causes widespread disruption to the country's economic order"). Well-established examples can be provided illustratively, not exhaustively. This balances the principle of legality with the flexibility needed to combat new forms of crime.Clarify Legal Ambiguities: The law must explicitly clarify the time for assessing the financial threshold, the scope of specific punishments, and formally recognize "clear fraud" as an exception to the principle of independence in commercial documents.Reform Procedural Laws: The Code of Criminal Procedure must be amended to explicitly incorporate a mechanism for interim criminal orders, granting courts clear authority to take urgent preventive measures in economic crime cases.Ultimately, the enactment of a comprehensive and coherent "Law on Combating Economic Crimes," grounded in precise conceptual foundations, is essential to overcoming the current fragmentation and establishing unity of procedure in judicial authorities. Only through such foundational reforms can Iran's criminal policy hope to effectively deter the scourge of economic crime and safeguard public assets.
Criminal law and criminology
aref jafarian; Farid Mohseni; mohammadhadi tavakolpur
Abstract
The Electronic Monitoring Authority, established under Article 62 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 (1392) and formalized through the 2018 (1397) Executive Regulations, has now commenced large-scale operations across Iran. Designed to supervise offenders outside traditional incarceration, the initiative ...
Read More
The Electronic Monitoring Authority, established under Article 62 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 (1392) and formalized through the 2018 (1397) Executive Regulations, has now commenced large-scale operations across Iran. Designed to supervise offenders outside traditional incarceration, the initiative aims to deliver both social and legal benefits. Central to assessing its success are two key issues: the quality of its implementation and the perceptions of the offenders subjected to electronic monitoring. To address these concerns, a structured questionnaire was administered to 100 individuals under electronic monitoring in Alborz and South Khorasan provinces, complemented by insights from legal experts to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the system’s effectiveness.MethodologyThe study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses. Individual interviews captured personal experiences, family-related impacts, device performance, and the practical effects of mobility restrictions. The collected data were analyzed to identify both strengths and limitations of the electronic monitoring system.Results1) Financial Aspects: The system successfully enables participation by financially disadvantaged offenders, which is viewed as a significant advantage. However, supervisory restrictions on mobility prevent 88% of participants from engaging in employment while under monitoring—representing a major limitation.2) Technical Aspects: Device reliability remains a critical challenge. More than half of respondents (52%) reported at least one technical malfunction, and 36% required device repair or replacement. These technical vulnerabilities significantly reduce system effectiveness.3) Offender and Family Experience: Most offenders evaluated electronic monitoring positively: 75% rated it as good or very good, and 69% reported that their families shared this positive assessment. Additionally, 65% faced no major difficulties in securing temporary permissions to leave the monitoring area, offering a clear advantage over incarceration. Psychological well-being remained generally stable, with 95% of male participants reporting no need for professional intervention (noting that men traditionally underreport such needs). Furthermore, 61% did not view the system as a hindrance to daily routines—an outcome likely to improve further with expanded mobility permissions. Conversely, 46% of family members experienced some limitations, an inherent feature of the system but one that could be mitigated by strategic adjustments in mobility policy.4) Rehabilitation Impact: Home confinement affected 65% of participants, suggesting reduced opportunities for rehabilitation. Expanding mobility ranges and issuing targeted supervisory instructions may significantly improve rehabilitative outcomes.5) Preference for Electronic Monitoring Over Other Mitigation Measures: Electronic monitoring was preferred by 58% of participants over suspended sentences or parole, particularly among individuals with minimal criminal histories. Moreover, 93% ranked electronic monitoring above semi-liberty arrangements. If implemented with expanded mobility allowances under appropriate regulatory guidelines, electronic monitoring could offer stronger supervisory capacity while maintaining high levels of offender preference.6) Supervision Practices: Monthly telephonic contact with supervising authorities was viewed as non-intrusive by 70% of participants. While this benefits offenders by reducing perceived supervisory pressure, the study recommends supplementary identification and monitoring mechanisms to enhance public safety and ensure continuous compliance.ConclusionDespite notable technical and procedural challenges, electronic monitoring has been positively evaluated by the majority of participants and shows promising potential within Iran’s judicial framework. Policy refinements—particularly differentiated mobility allowances for offenders with specialized capacities or outdoor skills—could further enhance both rehabilitative outcomes and administrative efficiency. These findings affirm electronic monitoring as a viable complementary alternative to traditional incarceration, supporting offender reintegration while safeguarding public security
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
Criminal law and criminology
morteza arefi; Alireza Ghaderi
Abstract
One of the most concerning emerging crimes in cyberspace is "cyber grooming," which refers to the process by which adults establish contact with children online with the intent of engaging in sexual activity or exploitation. Owing to their age, cognitive development, and psychological vulnerability, ...
Read More
One of the most concerning emerging crimes in cyberspace is "cyber grooming," which refers to the process by which adults establish contact with children online with the intent of engaging in sexual activity or exploitation. Owing to their age, cognitive development, and psychological vulnerability, children and adolescents are more susceptible to online threats than other segments of the population. Consequently, effective protection of minors necessitates a targeted and comprehensive criminal policy framework.This article first defines and conceptualizes the phenomenon of cyber grooming. It then explores its root causes at both macro and micro levels, drawing upon data and reports from the Iranian FATA Police. Finally, it examines preventive strategies designed to curb the incidence and impact of this crime, with particular attention to policy measures implemented in the United Kingdom as a practical example of successful intervention.The study is guided by two central research questions: (1) What criminological factors contribute to the commission of cyber grooming? and (2) What preventive strategies can be designed and implemented to combat this growing threat? These questions highlight the theoretical and practical significance of the issue, and underscore the importance of developing informed, evidence-based responses. The structure of the article follows three main sections: conceptualization, etiological analysis (macro and micro), and preventive policy development.In the international context, Article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges member states to protect minors from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. In line with this obligation, various countries have introduced legal and policy measures to address the unique risks posed by cyberspace. In Iran, the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents (2020) reflects this commitment. Article 10, paragraph 9, criminalizes cyber sexual solicitation, defined as "establishing contact with a child or adolescent for the purpose of any sexual abuse or illicit sexual intercourse," and subjects the offense to sixth-degree penalties under the Islamic Penal Code.This article emphasizes the interdependence of aetiology and prevention in understanding and addressing cyber grooming. At the macro level, societal factors, technological access, and policy gaps are considered. At the micro level, the individual characteristics of both victims and offenders are analyzed. Criminological theories such as routine activity theory and lifestyle-exposure theory help explain how minors become victims, while rational choice theory, personality disorders, and spatial displacement theory provide insight into offender behavior. The study also explores how children's curiosity about sexual topics and the dynamics of proximity and acceleration contribute to their vulnerability, thereby reinforcing the need for victim-focused prevention.The practical application of criminological theory is central to this study. To that end, the research identifies both situational and social prevention strategies. Situational measures include age restrictions for internet use, issuance of child-specific SIM cards, parental monitoring tools and guidelines, content filtering, and legal restrictions on data collection by internet service providers. On the social prevention side, the article advocates for educational programs tailored for children and families, compulsory media literacy training in schools, parental awareness campaigns, classification of online content by age and gender, and broader initiatives to enhance digital literacy and responsible internet use among minors.By integrating theoretical frameworks with practical policy recommendations, this article aims to contribute to a more effective and protective legal and social environment for children and adolescents navigating cyberspace.
Criminal law and criminology
mohammad reza arjmandi; Reza Faramarzi
Abstract
The criminalization of insulting the Prophet Muhammad, known as sabb al-nabi, is firmly established in Islamic tradition, juristic fatwas, and codified legal systems. This act is regarded as a punishable offense, with both territorial and personal jurisdiction conferred upon domestic courts, including ...
Read More
The criminalization of insulting the Prophet Muhammad, known as sabb al-nabi, is firmly established in Islamic tradition, juristic fatwas, and codified legal systems. This act is regarded as a punishable offense, with both territorial and personal jurisdiction conferred upon domestic courts, including extraterritorial jurisdiction over Iranian nationals who commit the offense outside Iran’s penal territory.However, the jurisdictional limitations of current legal frameworks have led to notable legal and practical challenges. On one hand, these limitations have created a de facto impunity for nationals of non-Islamic states who commit the offense beyond the reach of Islamic legal systems. On the other hand, the absence of an effective legal remedy has, in some cases, led individuals to engage in acts of private justice, including extrajudicial executions.This phenomenon is partly rooted in the views of several prominent Islamic jurists, who maintain that under certain conditions, any Muslim who witnesses the offense may be religiously obligated to carry out the prescribed punishment immediately. These interpretations, grounded in the perceived severity and irreparability of the offense, raise serious legal, ethical, and security concerns. Such actions undermine the accused’s right to a fair trial and the procedural safeguards of due process, posing threats to public order, judicial authority, and the rule of law.Moreover, extrajudicial responses expose perpetrators to criminal liability under both domestic and international law, risking prosecution, imprisonment, or capital punishment depending on the jurisdiction involved. These legal and social ramifications necessitate the development of a lawful, structured, and predictable mechanism for addressing sabb al-nabi offenses.To that end, a twofold legal reform is proposed. First, it is recommended that Article 5 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code be revised to explicitly include sabb al-nabi under its scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Article 5 currently permits prosecution of crimes committed abroad by Iranian nationals when the act is criminal under Iranian law. Expanding its scope to include any act—regardless of the perpetrator’s nationality or location—that insults the Prophet would address the current jurisdictional void and empower domestic courts to prosecute such offenses effectively.Second, given the consensus among Islamic legal schools on the gravity of sabb al-nabi and the necessity of punishment, the establishment of a specialized international court under the auspices of an Islamic organization—such as a proposed Islamic International Court of Justice—is essential. This tribunal would possess international jurisdiction to adjudicate cases of blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad, irrespective of the accused’s nationality or country of residence. Such a court would ensure that justice is administered according to Islamic legal principles and within the framework of due process, thereby deterring both impunity and vigilante action.An international mechanism of this kind would also harmonize the legal responses of Islamic nations, enhance intergovernmental cooperation, and provide a unified framework for prosecuting religious offenses that transcend national borders. It would serve as a legitimate and authoritative institution capable of addressing blasphemy in a manner consistent with both the rule of law and the spiritual values of the Muslim world.Institutionalizing the prosecution of sabb al-nabi would reaffirm the commitment of Islamic legal systems to justice, fairness, and procedural integrity. It would also demonstrate the capacity of Muslim-majority states to address religious offenses through formal legal mechanisms rather than through personal retaliation or mob violence—practices that often result in unlawful killings, international criticism, and diplomatic tensions.In conclusion, although the offense of insulting the Prophet is criminalized under Islamic law and recognized in several national legal systems, the absence of comprehensive jurisdiction—especially concerning non-citizens and extraterritorial acts—creates significant enforcement challenges. This legal gap fosters both impunity and the dangerous rise of private justice, each incompatible with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence and modern criminal law. Accordingly, it is essential to: (1) amend domestic laws to enable universal jurisdiction over sabb al-nabi, and (2) establish a competent international Islamic tribunal with full procedural safeguards. These reforms would enhance the effectiveness of religious offense prosecution, reinforce the authority of judicial systems, mitigate the misuse of religious sentiments, and contribute to both social and international stability
Criminal law and criminology
mohammad hassani; Hassan Shahmalekpour; Abbas Salmanpour; Esmaeil Naseri
Abstract
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and debilitating mental health condition triggered by exposure to highly traumatic or life-threatening events such as war, sexual assault, physical abuse, or natural disasters. It is characterized by symptoms including intrusive memories or flashbacks, ...
Read More
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and debilitating mental health condition triggered by exposure to highly traumatic or life-threatening events such as war, sexual assault, physical abuse, or natural disasters. It is characterized by symptoms including intrusive memories or flashbacks, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, emotional numbing, heightened arousal, irritability, and significant disturbances in sleep. Beyond these symptoms, PTSD often leads to maladaptive behaviors such as substance abuse, aggression, and in some cases, suicidal tendencies. Given its pervasive impact, PTSD is recognized not only as a psychological disorder but also as a significant factor influencing social behavior and criminal conduct. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the role of PTSD as a criminal defense within the judicial frameworks of Iran and the United States. This is particularly important given the high prevalence of PTSD among trauma-affected populations, such as Iranian veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, where prevalence rates range between 15% and 39%. Understanding how PTSD influences criminal behavior and how judicial systems respond to this condition is crucial for ensuring justice and appropriate legal treatment for affected individuals.Nature and Characteristics of PTSDPTSD develops after direct exposure to or witnessing traumatic events. It is especially prevalent among war veterans—such as those who served in Vietnam, Iraq, or the Iran-Iraq War—survivors of interpersonal violence, and victims of natural disasters. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the disorder’s core symptoms include re-experiencing trauma through vivid flashbacks or nightmares, deliberate avoidance of trauma reminders, emotional detachment or numbing, and persistent hyperarousal manifesting as irritability, anger outbursts, or sleep difficulties. These symptoms can significantly disrupt daily functioning, often leading to impulsive or violent behaviors, which are further aggravated by concurrent substance abuse. Empirical research shows that PTSD profoundly affects social relationships, family dynamics, and occupational performance, contributing to increased rates of divorce, parenting challenges, and co-occurring depression. The chronic and progressive nature of PTSD means that without appropriate treatment, symptoms often worsen, escalating risks of self-harm, aggression, and other adverse outcomes, underscoring the importance of its consideration in legal contexts.PTSD and Criminal BehaviorThe relationship between PTSD and criminal behavior is complex and operates through multiple pathways. First, individual symptoms such as emotional instability, impulsivity, and irritability can directly trigger aggressive or violent acts. For example, individuals suffering from PTSD may respond impulsively to perceived threats or stressors, occasionally resulting in criminal conduct. Additionally, attempts to self-medicate traumatic memories through substance abuse can exacerbate these tendencies. Second, environmental factors linked to traumatic backgrounds—such as combat exposure, histories of sexual abuse, or residence in high-crime communities—can further destabilize behavior and increase the risk of criminal activity. Studies indicate that nearly 46% of veterans with PTSD engaged in violent acts within a year, with 37% repeating such behaviors. Women exposed to violence, especially those with PTSD, also display higher rates of criminal involvement, highlighting the intersection of trauma and criminality.PTSD in the U.S. Judicial SystemThe U.S. judicial system acknowledges PTSD as a factor relevant to criminal responsibility in various ways. One significant application is through the insanity defense, specifically under the M’Naghten Rule, which allows for acquittal if the defendant was unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to mental illness. Notable cases such as State v. Cocuzza, involving a Vietnam veteran, and Commonwealth v. Tracy have seen successful use of PTSD as a basis for insanity acquittals. Conversely, cases like United States v. Duggan and United States v. Whitehead demonstrate that insufficient clinical evidence can lead to rejection of such defenses.The automatism defense, which argues that the defendant acted unconsciously due to PTSD-related dissociation or other symptoms, has also been accepted in appellate courts, as seen in People v. Lisnow and State v. Fields. Additionally, PTSD-related syndromes such as battered woman syndrome have been successfully invoked in self-defense claims, especially where the defendant faced imminent danger, as in State v. Kelly and Rogers v. State.Even when PTSD does not absolve criminal responsibility, it often serves as a mitigating factor reducing sentencing severity. For instance, in In re Nunez, a life sentence was overturned due to failure to consider PTSD, while in United States v. Cope, full criminal responsibility was maintained despite the presence of PTSD, illustrating variable judicial discretion.PTSD in the Iranian Judicial SystemIran’s judicial system currently exhibits a more limited and rigid approach to PTSD in criminal law. The Islamic Penal Code (2013), particularly Article 149, allows exemption from criminal responsibility solely in cases where the defendant completely lacks willpower or discernment due to mental illness, effectively limiting considerations to cases of legal insanity. This binary distinction ignores the complexities of partial impairments such as PTSD, thus excluding many affected individuals from appropriate legal recognition.Article 153 provides exemptions for involuntary acts performed during sleep or unconscious states, which could apply to some PTSD-related automatism, but this remains largely unexplored. While self-defense is acknowledged under Article 156, the strict necessity and proportionality criteria restrict its application, especially regarding psychological conditions like battered woman syndrome, which is more flexibly treated in common law jurisdictions.Furthermore, Iran lacks formal recognition of diminished responsibility for sub-insanity disorders like PTSD. Although Articles 37 and 38 allow judges discretionary power to reduce sentences, these provisions are vague and rarely emphasize mental disorders that do not meet full insanity criteria. Alternative legal mechanisms, such as alternative punishments (Article 64), deferred sentencing (Article 40), suspension of prosecution (Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and exemption from punishment (Article 39), could theoretically support PTSD defendants, but their discretionary use and absence of clear guidelines limit their practical effectiveness.ConclusionComparing the two systems, the U.S. judiciary demonstrates greater flexibility and clinical integration in addressing PTSD as a criminal defense through insanity, automatism, self-defense, and mitigating sentencing factors. Conversely, the Iranian system’s strict application of insanity standards and lack of diminished responsibility frameworks result in limited acknowledgment of PTSD’s impact on criminal behavior, with no documented cases explicitly involving PTSD defenses.To promote justice and therapeutic outcomes for PTSD-affected offenders in Iran, judicial reforms are recommended. These include formal recognition of diminished criminal responsibility for sub-insanity disorders, mandatory sentencing reductions for specific mental health conditions, expansion of alternative sentencing options, and revision of existing penal provisions to emphasize defendants’ psychological states. Such changes would align Iranian criminal law more closely with contemporary understandings of PTSD’s psychological complexities and foster a more equitable, humane judicial response.
Criminal law and criminology
Mohammad Faraji
Abstract
Criminality is a complex phenomenon that has been analyzed from various perspectives by criminologists. Traditionally, criminality was perceived as an internal issue, with studies focusing primarily on the factors within a given society that contribute to different types of crime. This approach, while ...
Read More
Criminality is a complex phenomenon that has been analyzed from various perspectives by criminologists. Traditionally, criminality was perceived as an internal issue, with studies focusing primarily on the factors within a given society that contribute to different types of crime. This approach, while natural at the time, was limited by its exclusion of external factors that influence crime. Historically, criminality was understood as a phenomenon occurring within the boundaries of a society, without any significant connection to factors outside of that society. However, this view is no longer acceptable in contemporary criminology. Today, it is widely acknowledged that crime is influenced by both internal and external criminogenic factors. As such, it is essential to distinguish between different criminogenic levels: national, transnational or regional, and international or global.The first level—national criminology—focuses on the relationship between specific criminogenic factors and the occurrence of crimes within a national society. The second and third levels, transnational/regional criminology and international criminology, analyze the factors that explain why certain crimes occur across borders, affecting multiple countries. Based on this understanding, I conceptualize three levels of criminological analysis: national criminology, transnational/regional criminology, and international criminology. This framework is an expansion of the traditional criminological approach, which typically explains the causes of crime within a national context. The three levels of analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of criminology and open new avenues for research that take into account the interconnected nature of crime in a globalized world.In my previous article, “Regional Crime: From Etiology to Solution-Finding,” I conceptualized regional crime and its characteristics. I theorized a structure of opportunity and constraint, primarily based on Charles Tittle’s Control Balance Theory, to explain the dynamics of transnational and regional crimes. Methodologically, I defined regional crimes and analyzed them from a criminological perspective, aiming to create a criminological theory of regional crime. This framework would enable a deeper understanding of crime in specific regions, allowing for the application of criminological analysis to any given area. In doing so, I made a deduction based on several key factors, including opportunity, constraints, unbalanced control, criminal fluidity, forum shopping, criminogenic asymmetries, climate or environment of impunity, and the comparative advantage in illegality.By using these factors in an inductive manner, I was able to theorize the dynamics of regional crime and criminality based on general scientific principles. From there, I applied this theory to different regions around the world to test its applicability. To support this, I used secondary analysis, where I reconsidered isolated criminological findings from various regions, including those in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. This meta-synthesis approach allowed me to determine how my theory could analytically explain regional and transnational criminality across different contexts.As a result, I developed a theoretical framework for the regional analysis of criminality, based on six key propositions. First, the political, economic, and social conditions of a national unit, whether favorable or unfavorable, can have significant repercussions on neighboring countries. Second, factors such as political corruption, economic weakness, social decay, revolutions, and periods of transition tend to lead to an increase in crime. Third, these vulnerabilities within a given national unit not only result in higher crime rates within that unit but also spill over into neighboring countries. Fourth, the geographical proximity of nations and the existence of related or similar social and economic contexts between countries create more criminal opportunities. This situation often leads to a comparative advantage in illegality, where criminals exploit the differences between countries’ legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and punishments.Fifth, given the spillover of chaos and crime, which can become transnational or regional, it becomes necessary to adopt transnational or regional criminal policies. By doing so, we can make informed and reasonable predictions about the nature and extent of crime in a given region, as well as the factors that cause crime to spread across borders. Therefore, the conditions within countries in a specific region are correlated with the nature and extent of crime within that region. For instance, the nature and extent of crime in Europe would likely be very different from that in Africa or Latin America due to the differences in the political, economic, and social conditions of these regions. This understanding leads to the conclusion that not only does every national unit need its own criminal policy, but also that countries within a given region must align their criminal policies with each other.Finally, countries within a region must design a regional criminal policy that addresses the shared challenges of transnational and regional crimes. This approach implies that criminal policies should be tailored to regional conditions rather than adhering to a universal criminal policy that fails to take regional factors into account. Regional criminal policies must be designed with an understanding of local and international dynamics, ensuring they address the complexities of crime across borders.In summary, understanding crime requires a multi-level approach that considers not only the internal factors within a society but also the external factors that influence criminal behavior across borders. By adopting national, transnational/regional, and international levels of criminological analysis, we can develop more effective and context-specific criminal policies to address the global nature of modern crim
Criminal law and criminology
Azim Aghababaei Taghanaki; Mohammad Ja`far Habibzadeh; Hossein Javadi Hossein Abadi
Abstract
Psychology, in the context of both crime commission and issues related to punishment, criminal responsibility, and criminal capacity, is deeply connected to criminal law. Criminal law and criminology intersect with psychological studies at various stages of the criminal process—ranging from legislation ...
Read More
Psychology, in the context of both crime commission and issues related to punishment, criminal responsibility, and criminal capacity, is deeply connected to criminal law. Criminal law and criminology intersect with psychological studies at various stages of the criminal process—ranging from legislation to the enforcement of punishment and beyond. In the legislative stage, certain psychological concepts and values have received criminal protection. During adjudication, issues related to proving mens rea (the mental state) arise, while at the enforcement stage, topics such as criminal responsibility, criminal capacity, rehabilitation, and treatment processes come into play. Even after the execution of punishment, discussions on recidivism remain linked to psychological matters. One of the psychological concepts protected under criminal law is aggression. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Iran’s penal policy in addressing verbal aggression and to analyze the psychological, social, and cultural causes influencing it. The primary objective is to identify the challenges of the current penal policy in controlling this crime and to propose solutions based on social psychology and restorative justice. This article seeks to answer why traditional responses, such as imprisonment and flogging, have not only failed to reduce verbal aggression but, in some cases, have even contributed to its increase. Additionally, the study aims to integrate criminal law and psychology to design an effective model for repairing damaged relationships and preventing reoffending. MethodologyThis research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources, Iranian legal documents, and interdisciplinary studies. Data collection is conducted through content analysis of criminal laws related to verbal aggression (such as insult, threats, and defamation) and a systematic review of psychological theories on aggression. A comparative analysis of restorative justice approaches and modern criminal policies is also performed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. The research methodology is based on a qualitative analysis of psychological and social factors influencing crime commission, alongside a critique of the current punitive policies. After examining the concepts of aggression, verbal aggression, and criminal verbal aggression and their psychological causes, the study evaluates the effectiveness of Iran’s penal policy in responding to these crimes. The article addresses the following key questions: Is the existing penal policy effective? What measures can be taken to enhance the effectiveness of Iran’s criminal justice system in addressing these offenses? FindingsAggression, in behavioral psychology, is an intentional act (physical or verbal) aimed at harming another person and causing distress. Some forms of verbal aggression, including insults, threats, and satire, have been criminalized under Iranian law, establishing a direct connection between criminal law and social psychology. This research introduces the concept of "criminal verbal aggression" for these offenses. The findings indicate that Iran’s criminal policy toward verbal aggression primarily relies on traditional punishments such as imprisonment, flogging, and fines. However, these measures lack the necessary effectiveness in reducing crime rates. Iran’s criminal justice responses not only fail to control this crime but may also, in some cases, contribute to its escalation. Among the reasons for this inefficiency are the neglect of the psychological roots of aggression (such as personality, situational, and cultural factors), the disregard for victims' needs, and the failure to implement preventive strategies. Studies show that punitive sanctions neither rehabilitate offenders nor deter crime; instead, they fuel cycles of anger and vengeance, increasing the likelihood of recidivism. Innovation (Value)The novelty of this research lies in integrating criminal law with findings from social psychology and proposing a comprehensive model for reforming current policies. The article suggests establishing "personality files" for offenders of verbal aggression, implementing developmental and social prevention strategies, and incorporating restorative justice principles such as mediation, victim participation, and compensation. These approaches move beyond traditional punitive measures. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the need to align criminal penalties with psychological research by replacing imprisonment, flogging, and fines with alternative sanctions, such as mandatory participation in skill-building programs or psychological treatments. The research critiques the one-dimensional nature of criminal laws and underscores the necessity of redefining verbal aggression within the framework of human interactions and fundamental rights. ConclusionIn social psychology, theories such as drive theory, social learning theory, and the general aggression model explain the causes of aggression. While early psychologists like Sigmund Freud believed that aggression was genetic and hereditary, most contemporary psychologists reject this view, emphasizing that aggression results from various social, economic, cultural, personal, and situational factors.Criminal policy responses to verbal aggression cannot be effective without considering insights from social psychology. Aggression is a behavior with psychological roots, yet Iranian legislators have not sufficiently addressed these psychological factors in drafting and enforcing penalties. Iran’s criminal justice system requires a fundamental transformation in its approach to verbal aggression, shifting from purely punitive measures to rehabilitative and preventive strategies.The study’s primary conclusion is that implementing restorative justice, reducing reliance on imprisonment, and focusing on psychological and social factors—such as personality assessments, ethical training, and economic improvements—can provide effective solutions for reducing verbal aggression. Additionally, the research recommends establishing comprehensive databases, strengthening mediation mechanisms, and training judges in emotional regulation to align criminal policy with societal needs. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the need to revise criminal norms through interdisciplinary research, prioritizing prevention over punishment.
Criminal law and criminology
tahmineh shahpouri
Abstract
Online victimization, as a growing phenomenon, presents unique challenges that differ significantly from traditional forms of victimization. Features such as the anonymity of both perpetrators and victims, the dissolution of geographical boundaries, reduced trust, and heightened vulnerability make cyberspace ...
Read More
Online victimization, as a growing phenomenon, presents unique challenges that differ significantly from traditional forms of victimization. Features such as the anonymity of both perpetrators and victims, the dissolution of geographical boundaries, reduced trust, and heightened vulnerability make cyberspace a distinctive environment for victimization. A key factor influencing this form of victimization is cultural differences, which play a pivotal role in the formation, experience, and recurrence of online victimization. Culture, a complex concept encompassing the beliefs, behaviors, customs, and values of a society, has been recognized since the 1990s, particularly in criminology and cultural criminology, as a significant structural factor.Contemporary criminological approaches view culture and cultural factors as foundational causes of crime and victimization. Cultural criminology, in particular, argues that culture not only shapes criminal behavior but also influences societal reactions to crime and victimization. Modern media and online environments, by influencing social norms and perceptions, have created new contexts for criminal acts and victimization. These new settings present specific challenges for vulnerable groups, particularly children and adolescents, such as the promotion of violence, aggressive behaviors, and the erosion of positive social values.This study adopts an analytical-descriptive approach, utilizing library resources to investigate the theoretical and practical aspects of this issue.Theoretical Frameworks Explaining the Role of Cultural Differences in Online VictimizationRoutine Activity Theory (RAT), proposed by Cohen and Felson, identifies three essential elements for victimization: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and capable guardianship. Cultural differences influence these components in various ways. For instance, some cultures exhibit greater tolerance toward aggressive online behaviors, and the levels of familial and social supervision over internet use can vary. Cultures that encourage the sharing of personal information increase their members’ vulnerability to online victimization.Social Identity Theory emphasizes the role of group membership and cultural identity in how individuals experience victimization. People from diverse cultural backgrounds may experience victimization differently based on their group affiliations. Ethnic and racial minorities, for example, are disproportionately exposed to online harassment, and the social distance between groups can intensify feelings of isolation and vulnerability. Social groups that legitimize violent behavior may contribute to the perpetuation of victimization cycles.The Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model (BGCM) focuses on the impact of learned attitudes, especially regarding anonymity and the diminished relevance of physical power in online spaces. Cultures with strong social norms, such as collectivist societies, tend to have lower rates of online bullying. Conversely, individualistic cultures, which emphasize personal autonomy, exhibit higher rates of online victimization. Positive attitudes toward online harassment, combined with a lack of accountability and weak social norm enforcement, increase individuals’ vulnerability.Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory identifies cultural dimensions such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity, which all affect online interactions and the likelihood of victimization. For example, in high power distance cultures, individuals may be less likely to report victimization, while those in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance may engage less in risky online interactions.Cultural Differences Impacting Online Victimization Across Four DimensionsThe perception of victimization varies across cultures. Cultural norms influence how individuals recognize and react to victimization, as well as how seriously it is perceived. What may be considered a minor offense in one culture could be viewed as a serious crime in another, depending on the societal values and norms.The type of victimization also differs among cultures. Certain cultures may be more vulnerable to specific types of online victimization, such as cyberbullying, identity theft, or online harassment. These patterns are shaped by cultural tendencies toward technology use, communication styles, and the protection of personal information.The experience of victimization and its impact on individuals are mediated by cultural factors. Some cultures may emphasize resilience and coping strategies, while others may foster feelings of shame or helplessness in response to victimization. For example, cultures with strong community support systems may encourage individuals to seek help and recover more quickly, while those without such systems may experience prolonged psychological effects.Recurrence of victimization is influenced by cultural attitudes toward social supervision and support. In cultures with weaker social supervision or less emphasis on community support, individuals are more likely to experience repeated victimization. This lack of support can exacerbate the negative effects of online victimization and contribute to cycles of re-victimization.Practical Implications and RecommendationsThis study highlights the need for culturally sensitive approaches in addressing online victimization. Educational programs and awareness workshops should be tailored to cultural contexts to effectively reduce the occurrence of online victimization. Measures such as enhancing social and familial supervision, promoting positive social norms, and creating secure online platforms are essential. These interventions must take cultural differences into account to be truly effective in mitigating online victimization.Furthermore, a deeper understanding of cultural factors is crucial for designing effective prevention strategies that not only reduce victimization but also enhance the mental health and safety of individuals navigating digital environments. Cultural sensitivity in both policy-making and interventions is key to reducing online harm and supporting the well-being of vulnerable groups, such as children, adolescents, and marginalized communities.
Criminal law and criminology
Zahra Nemati; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
A common form of domestic violence is intimate partner violence. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), in industrialized countries, about 24% of married women have experienced physical or sexual abuse by their husbands at least once. This rate increases to approximately 37% ...
Read More
A common form of domestic violence is intimate partner violence. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), in industrialized countries, about 24% of married women have experienced physical or sexual abuse by their husbands at least once. This rate increases to approximately 37% (about 1 in 3 women) in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran.However, domestic violence is not explicitly criminalized under Iranian criminal law. As a result, such cases are typically prosecuted under general offences such as assault and battery, threats, insults, and slander. Yet, the penalties for these general offences often prove insufficient and ineffective in addressing domestic violence, due to the unique nature of spousal abuse—including the marital relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the repetitive character of the violence, and the broader impact on third parties such as children.On the one hand, requiring a wealthy husband to pay diya (compensation) to the victim in cases of physical assault, or a fine to the government in cases of insult or slander, neither alleviates the victim’s suffering nor deters the perpetrator from repeating the abuse. On the other hand, when the husband is insolvent, the victim receives no diya, and in other cases, the frequent judicial tendency to suspend sentences without mandating any corrective programs further undermines the deterrent effect of punishment. Additionally, the criminal justice system in Iran is offender-oriented and does not actively involve the victim in the justice process. Filing a criminal complaint against a husband may also threaten the survival of the marriage, which the wife may not wish to end through divorce.Given the inefficiencies of the current criminal justice system—both in preventing reoffending and addressing victims’ needs—several critical questions arise: Is it possible to apply restorative justice within Iran’s criminal law framework? If so, what are the potential benefits of restorative justice in such cases? And what factors must be considered to ensure the effectiveness of restorative justice in addressing domestic violence?This research employs a qualitative approach and a descriptive-analytical method to explore the applicability of restorative justice in domestic violence cases, identify its benefits, and examine the challenges that may arise in its implementation. Methodolgy To answer the above questions, in addition to using library resources, two other methods were employed for data collection: Content analysis of 25 criminal and family court cases related to domestic violence, and in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with a diverse group of stakeholders, including 45 victims, 20 judges, 15 attorneys, and 20 family health specialists (psychiatrists, psychologists, couples therapists, counselors, and social workers).FindingsThe research findings indicate that restorative justice can address the needs and expectations of domestic violence victims more effectively than the traditional criminal justice system. Moreover, there are existing legal provisions within Iran’s Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that provide a foundation for applying restorative justice. However, the lack of proper infrastructure and implementation mechanisms—such as insufficient and inappropriate spaces for restorative meetings and the absence of training programs for judges and attorneys—has significantly hindered the practical application of restorative justice in domestic violence cases. Even in the few cases where mediation has been attempted, failure to adhere to the core principles of restorative justice—including voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the neutrality of mediators and facilitators—has resulted in poor outcomes and undermined the legitimacy of the process. ConclusionTo make restorative justice a viable and effective option in domestic violence cases, it is essential to establish appropriate institutional frameworks and to employ trained, experienced facilitators. In other words, successful implementation of restorative processes in cases of spousal abuse not only requires raising awareness of the benefits of restorative justice but also depends on the development of proper infrastructure and specialized training for facilitators and mediators who can competently manage these sensitive sessions. The central recommendation of this research is to promote the expansion of mediation institutions across cities, train mediators and specialized facilitators for handling domestic violence cases, and to outsource restorative justice functions—whenever possible—to independent mediation institutions rather than relying solely on entities embedded within the criminal justice system, such as public prosecutor’s offices and courts.
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
jafar nezamolmolki
Abstract
aimMany articles have been written for analysis and disambiguition of Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law; Nevertheless, based on lack of comprehensive analysis of ambiguities and defects and also lack of single study, consisting interpretative and implicative appropriate solution as to ...
Read More
aimMany articles have been written for analysis and disambiguition of Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law; Nevertheless, based on lack of comprehensive analysis of ambiguities and defects and also lack of single study, consisting interpretative and implicative appropriate solution as to the ambiguities and reformative solutions for the defects, a new and comprehensive study is necessary; which in it, While avoiding repetitive content, by studying the jurisprudential and Quranic history of Ifsad fi al-Arth and considering the principles governing criminal law and the principles of Islamic criminal jurisprudence, as well as the executive aspects of the law, take action for the comprehensive and coherent analysis and pathology of ambiguity and defects in the article take action; In such a way that, the appropriate interpretative and effective solution for the existing situation as to the ambiguities and appropriate model to amend the law in relation to the defects of the law will be presented. MethodolgyIn this article, based on library collection method and descriptive-analytical approach, In the first place we analyze and determinate concept and scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth, while comparing it with concept of Moharebah; Then, Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law has been analysed, considering different doctorine on it. For this purpose, after analyzing ambiguities of the article, we study it’s defects. in the meantime we suggest effective and efficient solutions for the article, while interpreting and analyzing it. Findings Besides positive revolutions of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law ,i.e independence of Ifsad fi al-Arth from Moharebah, limiting of Ifsad fi al-Arth to crimes with large effects, by determining special conditions for it, and ultimately public aspects of these crimes, ambiguity in concept and scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth compared with concept of Moharebah, relation of this article with The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country and it’s relation with other acts, considering its note, are ambiguities of this article; Also, generalizing title of Ifsad fi al-Arth to committed crimes in different fields, the same punishment for accessory and Perpetration and absense of distinction between concept and scope of accessory and captaincy are defects of mentioned article. Innovation 1-In respect of ambiguity at concept and scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth crimes, due to it’s relation with Moharebah crime, it seems that conceptual relationship between Ifsad fi al-Arth and Moharebah is absolute generality and peculiarity.2- In respect of ambiguity at relation of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law with The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country, based on the revolutions, in relation major disruption crimes which are considered Ifsad fi al-Arth , article 286 is governed on The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country.3- In respect of ambiguity at note of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law and it’s relationship with other penal codes, based on study of different status as to article 286, we prove that desired status, i.e conducts which are neither crimes in other penal codes nor Ifsad fi al-Arth criminalized in article 286, to be included in the note, are impossible and unjustifiable.4- In respect of large scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth in article 286, which include crimes in different fields, as a defect, the best method for reforming the article is that to whether we consider it as a supplementary regulation, for definition without criminalizing, as to other penal codes, which criminalized Ifsad fi al-Arth but not defining it, or if legislator intend to criminalize Ifsad fi al-Arth, while abolishing all of the penal codes in this field, pass a comprehensive penal regulation on it.5- In respect of the same punishment for accessory and captaincy and lack of conceptual and punishment distinction of them, interpretative solution is clearly in conflict with express provision of this article and cannot solve this obvious defects. So it is necessary to amend the law. conclusionBased on results of this research Ifsad fi al-Arth includes Moharebah and other crimes. Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law governed to The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country and has considered some new characters and conditions for disruption in the Economic System of the Country. The assumption which note of article 286 is based on, i.e. some of criminal actions, which are neither a crime subject to other acts and nor Ifsad fi al-Arth in this article, is neither justifiable nor desirable and in result the note is redundant. Modification of article 286 as a supplementary regulation for other instance of Ifsad fi al-Arth, or comprehensive regulation with abolishment of former regulations in this field and also it’s modification as to considering different and suitable punishment for deputy of crime and perpetrator of it and finally distinction concept and scope of accessory and captaincy are necessary
Criminal law and criminology
Mohammadkazem Behroozi; Mohammad Mahdi Saghian; behzad razavifard
Abstract
Scientific and practical advancements across all fields of human knowledge are undeniable and progressing at a rapid pace. Governments, as the cornerstone of any nation, are inevitably impacted by these internal changes and transformations. Electronic governance has emerged as a pivotal concept and strategy ...
Read More
Scientific and practical advancements across all fields of human knowledge are undeniable and progressing at a rapid pace. Governments, as the cornerstone of any nation, are inevitably impacted by these internal changes and transformations. Electronic governance has emerged as a pivotal concept and strategy facilitating administrative efficiency in many societies. Consequently, significant attention has been devoted to its implementation and the development of its infrastructure on a global scale. Our statesmen have been proactive in embracing these advancements in pursuit of effective governance.Electronic surveillance stands out as a crucial component and catalyst within the realm of electronic governance. Primarily aimed at enhancing monitoring efficiency and reducing face-to-face supervision, electronic surveillance employs various mechanisms to achieve its objectives. This article seeks to explore electronic surveillance as a novel alternative to incarceration. With the global population on the rise and technological advancements proliferating, new forms of deviant behavior that infringe upon societal rights have emerged. Governments continue to explore legislative revisions aimed at minimizing custodial sentences, with alternatives to imprisonment gaining prominence.Conditional release, proposed during the French Revolution, is one such alternative. However, the efficacy of these measures in deterring repeat offenses must be carefully considered to fulfill the punitive intent of the law. Current alternatives include suspended sentences, fines, and parole, the latter being applicable post-incarceration, albeit typically once per offender. The resultant prison overcrowding and associated costs have spurred legal and criminological discourse around innovative solutions such as community service, social rights deprivation, home detention, and electronic monitoring.Among these alternatives, electronic monitoring employs various technologies and methodologies. These include recording devices for audio and visual surveillance, interception tools for monitoring communications, software to monitor electronic correspondence, and GPS-enabled devices such as electronic ankle bracelets. These technologies provide judicial systems with effective monitoring tools for convicted individuals, supplementing traditional incarceration methods.In Iran, the adoption of electronic monitoring systems, as outlined in Article 62 of the Islamic Penal Code and related clauses in the Criminal Procedure Law, reflects a growing trend influenced by international practices, particularly in countries like France and the United States. The aim is to mitigate prison overcrowding and minimize societal harm while preserving the dignity and rights of the accused. Studies indicate that alternative sentencing methods reduce recidivism rates and criminal activities among monitored individuals compared to those incarcerated.Despite its advantages, the effectiveness of electronic monitoring systems can be affected by technical issues such as signal interruptions, battery failures, communication disruptions, and inadequate capacity to record locations. Moreover, the implementation and management of such systems require meticulous attention and precision from stakeholders including prisons, law enforcement, monitoring agencies, and judicial bodies.
Criminal law and criminology
Saideh Amini; Hassan Alipour
Abstract
Rent seeking is a widely used word in our society that the frequency of its use indicates the prevalence of a type of behavior based on receiving illegitimate financial and non-financial benefits by exploiting the fields and factors of rent, such as passing laws, granting licenses, creating monopolies ...
Read More
Rent seeking is a widely used word in our society that the frequency of its use indicates the prevalence of a type of behavior based on receiving illegitimate financial and non-financial benefits by exploiting the fields and factors of rent, such as passing laws, granting licenses, creating monopolies and access to information. Whenever there is a restriction on competition, whether it is of a natural type, such as a limitation caused by natural resources, or an artificial type, such as monopolies caused by innovation or entry ban, it creates a kind of surplus income for the beneficiaries, which is called rent in the economic literature. In other words, rent is the additional income paid to the owner of resources or the owner of expertise, which is not the result of operating in a competitive market and is not entirely the result of an individual's effort or expertise. Therefore, it can be said that rent is a kind of "privilege" resulting from non-competitive conditions, and rent-seeking is also called the process of acquiring this privilege.This phenomenon has left many negative consequences at different levels of the social system and from a criminological point of view, while weakening public morals and increasing corruption, it plays a significant role in the production and proliferation of economic and non-economic crimes, so it is considered a widespread pest and a serious warning for order and public security.The current approach of Iran's legal system towards rent seeking is based on situational prevention through methods such as dealing with the property of officials, creating job bans and restrictions on participation in government transactions, and also prevention and criminal confrontation through criminalization and punishment crimes related to rent-seeking (such as bribery, money laundering and embezzlement); But the criminalization of rent-seeking is a place of challenge and doubt. The justification or non-justification of the criminalization of rent seeking depends on the evaluation of various factors to assessment the reprehensibility or harmfulness of this phenomenon, which is above all these factors, economic needs. The supremacy of economic principles in assessment of criminalization of rent seeking arose from the connection of rent with the economic system. Rent, which is sometimes referred to as economic rent, is defined by several definitions such as payment and exclusive privilege, and as in classical economics, it is a normal concept; In moral economy, it is considered an unpleasant concept. Therefore, in the way of criminalizing rent seeking, it should be seen how much the phenomenon of rent seeking is affected by its main platform, which is the economy, and in the meantime, the legal system as the guardian of the criminalization of reprehensible behaviors or harmful, what ratio does it establish between the economic factor and other factors.Starting to investigate the feasibility of criminalizing rent seeking from an economic point of view is not only for the purpose of connecting the origin of rent with the economy; Rather, the economic approach to criminalization and calculating the cost-benefits of determining the punishment for rent seeking can distance the politician from emotional and rhetorical policies.The presentation of views related to the fight against rent seeking and economic corruption and the necessity of a decisive response to the corrupters is always tinged with politicization and sloganeering, which can cast a shadow on acceleration in criminalization. It is for this reason that despite the existence of various policies regarding dealing with rent and numerous criminalization that have been carried out regarding all types of crimes related to rent, we still witness the failure of these policies and the increase of rent seeking in country. It seems that the antidote to such hasty policies is the logical arrangement of criminalization requirements along with each other, where economic requirements are placed higher than others in the face of rent seeking.The economic approach is based on focus on not causing disruption in economic processes and its efficiency on the one hand and measuring the cost benefits of criminalization of rent-seeking on the economy (and not other areas because measuring the cost benefits of criminalization in the field of other issues are raised in general criminalization and are not exclusive to rent seeking.) and through the lens of these two indicators, it tries to show its share of justifying the criminalization of rent seeking as an independent crime.The main issue of this article is whether the criminalization of rent can be justified from the point of view of economic needs, so that it is time to examine other bases and needs (such as moral, social and political bases) or not? From an economic point of view, the criminalization of rent seeking faces two main challenges and one secondary challenge.In the first main challenge, this issue is raised that the criminalization of rent seeking leads to the control of economic activities and the ordering of the management or organization of the economy in macro dimensions, in such a way that the control of privileges, even if exclusive, can cause The free path of the economy will be lost. In fact, with the criminalization of rent, the government's rent economy will move from the side of the executive power to the control economy of the judiciary, and nothing will change in practice. The second main challenge considers the criminalization of rent-seeking from the perspective of a relative phenomenon whose positive and negative meanings are intertwined in the economy and cannot be demarcated. The sub-challenge looks at the criminalization of rent from the perspective of normative economics, based on which, its border with economic and financial corruption is not clear and does not have the characteristics of an independent criminal phenomenon.as a result, from the perspective of criminology and accurate knowledge of the causes of delinquency, it can be associated with challenges.Using library sources and by the method of description and analysis, this article has reached the conclusion that the economic approach to the criminalization of rent-seeking is ultimately positive, and according to the factor responsible for the economy, which is the main source and also the economic consequences of rent-seeking, this phenomenon should be criminalized. However, the necessity of freedom and competitiveness in economical activities should be considered as a negative criterion in the criminalization. Therefore, instead of focusing on economic activities it is suggested that in the criminalization of rent-seeking, the position, motivation and activities of the economic operator should be the center of the criminalization.
Criminal law and criminology
saeed Akbari; mohammadAli Hajidehabadi; MohammadKhalil Salehi
Abstract
Today, social protests are as an expected social phenomenon in human societies, even in societies based on democracy, there are social protests because the impact of the decisions of the state and political authorities on the lives of the people of a society is undeniable.The way that the different societies ...
Read More
Today, social protests are as an expected social phenomenon in human societies, even in societies based on democracy, there are social protests because the impact of the decisions of the state and political authorities on the lives of the people of a society is undeniable.The way that the different societies deal with this social phenomenon is subject to the rights and freedoms recognized by the states for the general public. On the other hand, people's actions also determine how the state deals with this phenomenon, so it is not unreasonable to say that the state's reaction on the one hand, and the people's reaction on the other hand, seriously can change the type and quality of protests.If a macro-level decision is taken by the state, and if this decision affects the lives of most people in a quantitative way, the protests can be expected in all parts of a country. Now, this protest, which is a sign of the state's decision and not accepted by the people, if it is responded too violently by the state, it can change the nature of a peaceful protesting population and turn it into a violent population, and if the protest is also violent from the beginning, there will be no doubt that no state will leave such actions unanswered with the tools at its disposal.Nevertheless, to a great extent, the type, quality and quantity of tools to deal with social protests are subject to the principles that have been accepted in the field of criminal policymaking. It goes without saying that this criminal policy significantly defines the limits and restrictions of citizens' freedom and also shows the level of accepted values of the state and the adherence to the principles contained in the documents beyond laws and regulations. It is clear that the states choose the most severe and harsh reactions when they feel a threat to their integrity, so it is important to identify such behaviors from the punishment perspective. The purpose of this research is to clarify the position of Iranian criminal policy confronting the social protests and the distinction between two types of behavior, i.e. violent protests and the need to punish these behaviors and peaceful protests and the need to recognize these types of protests.This research has been done with analytical-descriptive method through using numerous library sources. The necessity of the current research, in addition to its impact on the country's legal literature, can also be considered in the legislative and even judicial field because the criminal reaction to Peaceful protests is actually a violation of fundamental rights recognized in constitutional documents and even human values of the society.The findings of this research show that, where the protesters only want their lost rights and do not accept the new policy of the state which has affected their lives, and considering that these protesters do not have evil or criminal intentions and if these peaceful protests do not lead to the violation of the rules of criminal law, the state should not practice even the slightest aggression against this group of protesters, and only if the protesters violate one of the rules of criminal law, their behavior should be judged with mitigation in punishment.Social protests whether violent or peaceful have common features, such as:Relative continuityPurposefulness and agreement between protestersApplicability of the title of Protester to specific people Opposition to all parts or some part of the prevailing social conditionsWith precision in the words of researchers and experts in the field of social protests, the topics such as civil disobedience and civil resistance can be considered as examples of peaceful social protests, and the cases such as: riots, revolutions and coups(military coup) can be included under the title of violent protests. In terms of Iranian criminal policy regarding social protests ,peaceful and violent, two sources can be considered including: the constitution as the supreme legislative document of the country and other laws and regulations as normal laws. The principle of the right to peaceful protests is recognized in the 27th article of Iran’s constitution, which deals with gatherings and protests. On the other hand, normal laws, both in the field of violent protests and in the field of peaceful protests, have not a specific and explicit law for supporting or prohibition of social protests, and this matter has actually led to a kind of confusion among the judicial authorities.According to what kind of behavior and with what intention the protestors are protesting , and even to what specific group of the society they belong to, there is a different criminal description and interpretation, and in addition to this, the legislator can refer to the new findings of the criminal studies for the legalization of the reasons for mitigating the punishments or remission of punishment in order to consider this mitigation of the punishments or remission of punishment for the people who have committed a crime, considering that such behaviors can continue for days and even months and thus drag the situation of the society towards a crisis. Also, a group of protestors who have been influenced by others, are committing the crimes without a proper understanding of the social situation and begin to protest only under the influence of the psychological atmosphere of the society and the actions of others (without having a high criminal capacity).Such mitigation of the punishments or remission of punishment are not unprecedented in the field of criminal policy of Iran. It seems that in order to draw an ideal criminal policy along with protecting the rights and freedoms of the people, we need a basic legislation in this field of social behavior.
Criminal law and criminology
Hamidreza Daneshnari; Seyed Hossein Hosseini; Mohammad kKarimi bandar abadi
Abstract
Cinematic representation of the concepts of crime and criminal justice and investigation the social control function of power institutions in the context of artistic activities are among the most important issues that are studied in cultural criminology, and one of them is the cinematic representation ...
Read More
Cinematic representation of the concepts of crime and criminal justice and investigation the social control function of power institutions in the context of artistic activities are among the most important issues that are studied in cultural criminology, and one of them is the cinematic representation the carnival engineering. It refers to a situation where the upper class, in order to gain economic benefits, and spread post-modern culture, controls the lower class by forcing to participate in carnival or transforming armed violence with laughter will eliminate them. The current research aims to analyze the carnival engineering of violence in the movie "The First Purge" using the qualitative content analysis method.One of the most important terms in cultural criminology is the concept of carnival. Carnival is a critical subculture that challenges dominant social values and norms in a short period of time (Danesh Nari et al, 2023: 271). Carnival is a spontaneous, centrifugal movement and a constant battle between formal and informal culture. Carnival is a temporary and popular release from the reality and dominant form of the institutionalized system. Therefore, the carnival is the suspension of all bases, privileges, norms and taboos (Bakhtin, 1984: 10). Carnival celebrations have been different over time and in different countries, but they have features such as shooting, music, commotion and noise, stomping, dancing, jumping, fake theft, moving objects from their usual place and overturning things. vehicles, tools and instruments, harassing women, the poor, abnormal people, mentally disabled and other marginalized people, scaring children and abusing animals (Lozica, 2007: 72). The common denominator of carnival behavior is excess, mockery, aggression, violence, brutality, aggression, hedonism and spontaneity. Carnivals such as the Greek festival of Dionysus, the festival of Remi Kalends, and the god of Saturn have no limits in offering violent behavior. However, the emergence of divine religions such as Christianity brought the threatening factors of carnivals under control. Therefore, doing unusual and perhaps irrational things in the carnival was accepted as a necessity of daily life and a natural thing, with some modifications (Persadi, 2016: 41). The church was trying to replace the past aggressive behavior with religious and natural affairs and create a transformation in carnivals. Therefore, Christianity in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance period and early modernity brought about a transformation in the traditional concept of carnival. Although, the main elements of the carnival and ceremonies such as firework ceremonies, local gatherings are formed by the social strata in the modern era (Persadi, 2016: 42), but the upper class is also looking for the engineering or transformation of the carnival.Gerard McMurray, the director of "The First Purge", as a critic of the capitalist system, has shown his mental stereotypes in the form of obvious and hidden meanings in the film. The protest movement against the clean-up against the five thousand dollars reward for the participants, the low intervention of the island citizens in the clean-up against the direct intervention of the party-affiliated militia groups and.... Consonant and vowel images are used to show the contrast between the lower and upper layers.However, the party is a symbol of a protest movement. A movement that, according to Sabian, is the heir of a great collapse. A great collapse, on one side of which is a bankrupt government that is unable to take care of its citizens, and on the other side, an underclass that is struggling with increasing birth rates, increasing crime rates, and unemployment. Therefore, the party's solution is to set up a carnival of violence against the lower class. The symbol of this carnival, which is provided to the participants along with advanced tracking and image recording equipment, is the "Babitizia plant" or wild indigo; A plant that, in the light of purification, has become a symbol of the improvement of conditions and the destruction of old diseases and wounds or of the lower class.Holding a carnival requires justification. This issue was achieved with the help of experts in behavioral sciences and in the form of expressions such as "people are angry, they don't have money and food, they need to vent their violence". Then the minds of the American society should be prepared for the establishment of the carnival. Therefore, all media attention is directed to Staten Island and one of the locations of the laboratories, i.e. Park Hill Towers, and no laboratory is located in the noble neighborhoods where Dimitri and his group are based. , is not established. This problem shows that the lower floor is located at the tip of the arrow. The media construction approach of the carnival is explained to the audience with the two concepts of "experiment and laboratory" and "psychosocial evacuation". The term "experiment and laboratory" refers to scientific research and the optional participation of applicants in the experiment and payment of wages to them, and the term "psychosocial discharge" refers to an discharge of psychological violence against each other.
Criminal law and criminology
shirin bayat; yazdan seyghal
Abstract
The right to a healthy environment, closely tied to fundamental rights such as the right to life, has been widely recognized in various legal systems and international instruments. The importance of safeguarding and protecting the environment is universally acknowledged. Today, environmental protection ...
Read More
The right to a healthy environment, closely tied to fundamental rights such as the right to life, has been widely recognized in various legal systems and international instruments. The importance of safeguarding and protecting the environment is universally acknowledged. Today, environmental protection has become a primary goal for the global community, reflected in the constitutions and legal frameworks of over 110 countries. These laws enshrine the right to a healthy environment or emphasize the necessity of environmental protection. This commitment is not limited to domestic legislative measures; many international instruments have made environmental protection a key priority.Iran has also recognized the significance of environmental protection and has supported this cause through numerous legislative actions. Since the Islamic Revolution, the right to a healthy environment has been enshrined in Article 50 of the Iranian Constitution, with the protection of the environment being regarded as a public duty. To fulfill this responsibility, the Iranian legislature has implemented various measures. However, in some areas, these efforts have adopted a criminal and punitive approach, acknowledging the limitations of administrative and civil enforcement in safeguarding the environment and preventing harmful actions. This raises an important question: while protecting the environment, whether for its intrinsic value or for human benefit, is a worthy and desirable goal, does this alone justify criminal intervention?Criminalization delineates the boundary between prohibited behavior and individual freedoms. Any criminal intervention, including criminalization and sentencing, inherently restricts individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, limiting individual freedom through criminalization requires clear justification. Governments must base their criminalization actions on specific principles and rationale to justify the restriction of citizens' freedoms. This article aims to explore the underlying basis of criminalization in Iran’s environmental laws, specifically in relation to the criminalization of certain environmental behaviors.To address this, the article begins by examining one of the most significant principles of criminalization in legal systems: the principle of harm. John Stuart Mill, in his influential work On Liberty, argues that the only legitimate purpose for exercising power over individuals against their will is to prevent harm to others. Mill asserts that individuals should not be punished for actions that do not harm anyone. This principle of harm forms the cornerstone of the liberal model of criminalization.Mill’s interpretation of harm focuses on violations of rules essential for society's survival, which harm the vital interests of others. However, this definition raises several questions in the context of environmental crimes. For instance, in order to convict someone, must their behavior result in actual damage to the environment, or is it sufficient for the behavior to merely present a risk of harm? Relying exclusively on the principle of harm as a requirement for actual and tangible damage to the environment overlooks behaviors that pose a threat to the environment but have yet to cause direct harm. This limitation weakens the ability to protect the environment effectively.In the postmodern 21st century, often described as a “risky society,” the principle of caution has emerged as an essential component in criminal law, especially in areas that are critical and vulnerable, such as the environment. The principle of caution emphasizes the need for rational and foresighted thinking, aiming to avoid both intentional and unintentional risks. This shift in perspective has prompted changes in the interpretation of harm. In the American legal context, the development of the harm principle in Feinberg’s theory expands its scope, suggesting that harm is not limited to inherently damaging behaviors. Instead, it now encompasses behaviors that present a real or abstract risk of endangerment to the environment.This broader understanding of harm includes both real and abstract endangerment, allowing for the criminalization of actions that may not cause immediate harm but still pose a significant risk to the environment. By incorporating the principle of precaution, criminal law can better address environmental threats before they result in irreversible damage. This shift reflects a more proactive approach to environmental protection, ensuring that harmful behaviors are addressed in advance, rather than waiting for tangible damage to occur.In conclusion, while the principle of harm has traditionally been a guiding rationale for criminalization, its application in environmental law must evolve. The inclusion of the precautionary principle, along with an expanded concept of harm, provides a more effective framework for addressing environmental risks. This approach ensures that criminalization is not restricted to cases of actual harm but also extends to behaviors that present potential threats to environmental integrity, aligning with the global need for proactive and comprehensive environmental protection.
Criminal law and criminology
Mahdi Khaghani Esfahani
Abstract
The predominance of power relations in academic environments, including deviations from the worthy path of thought, leads to the consecration of the position of thinkers and the epistemological reflection of their scientific achievements. Power is not used without knowledge and it is rare that power ...
Read More
The predominance of power relations in academic environments, including deviations from the worthy path of thought, leads to the consecration of the position of thinkers and the epistemological reflection of their scientific achievements. Power is not used without knowledge and it is rare that power is not the source of knowledge. All sciences are mature and synergistic based on the premise and establishment of knowledge and power relations. Measuring the discourses related to power and knowledge reveals a special effect in the reflection of power and knowledge relations, which is the power-seeking of a few academics in some educational and research centers of the world. A rare but dangerous manifestation of the wide field of power-seeking is bully-like academic misbehavior, which, in the form of white-collar workers who are not criminalized, causes an imbalance in the relations between power actors in academic environments; it is a type of purposeful, complex and mostly hidden behavior in some academic environments, which is committed with the aim of threatening, subjugating or rejecting the victim's softness.With the aim of knowing the manifestations and legal-structural factors of the phenomenon of "academic bullying" from the zoological-criminological perspective, this research investigates the hypothesis that the lack of amendment and approval of the "Mental Health" bill, the lack of formulation of the "Job Design Bill" (especially in the department of academic staff members), failure to amend disciplinary laws and regulations and promotion of academic staff members of educational and research institutions of the Ministry of Science, the continuation of defects and gaps in the "instructions on how to deal with the abandonment of the legal duties of managers and employees and its prevention" and laxity in the implementation That along with weakness of competent legal policy in preventing academic violations and reacting to them, is a significant distance from the rule of "legal state" and "knowledge preservation" among the inadequacies of Iran's criminal policy in maintaining the health of academic relations. The increasing growth of this challenge causes the flow of pseudo-science to increase and to strengthen the suspicion of fabrication and unreality of a significant part of the created knowledge according to the claim of some scientific institutions of the country.The most important cultural-attitudinal factors of academic corruption can be considered as follows: the incorrect understanding of the place of knowledge in the development of society and governance, mass and degree-oriented higher education, the disorganization of the major unemployability crisis of graduates, the big market of scientific fraud and its spread from fraudulent students to professors applying for fraud, the discourse of commodification of higher education, populism and managerial populism, the decline of scientific creativity in society, the reduction of public trust in scientific mechanisms, the weakness of the knowledge and skills of graduates, and the effect of corruption in other forms on misconduct in academic behavior."Criminal personality theory", "interactionism theory", "organizational critical theory", "anomie theory", "social strain theory", "labeling theory", "weakness of self-control theory", are among the most prominent critical criminological theories which, in connection with the teachings of organizational behavior and human resource management, have the ability to explain the reasons for "academic bullying". These theories also have the ability to provide solutions for situational and social crime prevention methods, primary and secondary and prevention methods, and specific and criminal/non-criminal prevention methods to reduce power imbalance factors in academic relations. On the other hand, and from the perspective of victimological criminology, victims of academic bullying, in addition to being victims of abuse of power by their academic colleagues, are also considered victims of governmental crime; because the lack of legal regulations to prevent academic bullying is a feature of the neglect of the government system in protecting academic freedom and peace, and it encourages academic bullies in this non-criminalized bullying. Also, the existence of administrative regulations and organizational procedures for promotion of scientific rank of university scholars, whose gross defects and major inadequacies have been widely criticized, are other manifestation of government crime.This article, in the context of zemiology, discusses what capacity critical criminology has in strengthening criminal policy to control academic bullying (severe abuses that are highly contrary to the dignity and ethics expected from the environment of educational and research institutions). Therefore, after examining the research background of the subject and describing the effects of this phenomenon that violates the ethics of knowledge, and by explaining the theoretical foundations help reduce the imbalance of power in academic relations, and discuses ability of some criminological theories in the etiology of academic bullying.
