General and exclusive criminal law
Mohammad hosein Shaker ashtijeh
Abstract
The criterion of area, meaning that length, width, and depth must be observed in the case of the crime against physical integrity, is described in the book of Qisas of the Islamic Penal Code. In Article 394 of the Islamic Penal Code, the legislator has considered it necessary to observe the equality ...
Read More
The criterion of area, meaning that length, width, and depth must be observed in the case of the crime against physical integrity, is described in the book of Qisas of the Islamic Penal Code. In Article 394 of the Islamic Penal Code, the legislator has considered it necessary to observe the equality of length and width in the qisas of injuries. Strict observance of equality in length and width may cause the crime to spread to the limb adjacent to the limb subject to qisas, and this will mean the execution of qisas on two limbs. The legislator has paid attention to the prohibition of executing qisas on a limb other than the same limb, and therefore, if the length of the limb subject to qisas is less than the length of the injured limb in the victim, while prohibiting the execution of qisas on the other limb, it has ordered the payment of blood money for the excess of the crime. The legislator has ruled on the similarity of length and width based on the extent of the crime committed against the victim, and in fact, the victim is an indicator for determining the amount of punishment in the execution of qisas. However, the legislator considered the depth of the crime to be the truth of the crime in the body subject to criminal retribution, and in other words, he considered similarity in depth to mean the realization of the title of a similar crime in the crime, and he did not consider the observance of similarity in area to mean the implementation of retribution based on the millimeter measurement of the depth of the crime committed against the victim. The legislator took a dual approach to fragmenting the area criterion and considered the crime as an indicator for determining the depth based on the truth of the crime and the victim as an indicator for determining the length and width. A search of jurisprudential texts shows different statements in this regard. Since no explicit narration has explained this issue, there is no choice but to adhere to the saying of the Supreme Court based on the relevant principles in the book of retribution and how to implement retribution in similar cases. One of the principles raised in the implementation of punishment is the proportionality of the punishment to the degree of criminal responsibility, meaning that the criminal is condemned to bear and implement punishment on his physical integrity in proportion to the crime he committed against the victim. Proportionality of crime and punishment means that the punishment is determined in accordance with the crime committed, and in the next stage, it is necessary to determine the amount of punishment in proportion to the criminal responsibility. This principle, adhering to the principles of justice, fairness, and human dignity, rejects the victim as an indicator, and dictates the necessity of determining the criminal as a single indicator in all dimensions of depth, length, and width to observe similarity in the implementation of retribution, in such a way that first the proportionality of the crime committed on the victim is measured in proportion to the entire body, and in this proportion, retribution is carried out on the criminal. In addition to the fact that the execution of retribution in similar cases implies that it is carried out in accordance with the principle of proportionality of punishment to the degree of responsibility, for example, retribution is carried out for a large hand equal to 50 cm against a small hand equal to 30 cm, or vice versa, retribution is carried out for a 20 cm hand against a 40 cm hand, or if half of a fingernail equal to 2 cm is cut off, it is cut off for half of the fingernail on the limb subject to retribution, while if the intention is to execute exactly 2 cm, the entire fingernail of the criminal, which is equal to 2 cm, may be cut off, and in neither case is there a ruling on paying or receiving the difference in the crime. Therefore, the principle of proportionality of punishment to the degree of responsibility, along with the procedure for executing retribution in similar cases, implies the need to determine a single indicator, namely the criminal, in the execution of retribution. This research, the ruling of Article 394 of the Criminal Code, It considers the principle of respecting the equality of length and width in the body subject to retribution to be contrary to jurisprudential and legal principles, and in addition, it considers the payment of blood money in relation to the excess of the crime if the length of the body subject to retribution is less than the length of the injured body of the victim to be an attack on the property of the criminal. However, it considers the ruling of the law regarding the truth of the title of the crime in the body subject to retribution to be in accordance with jurisprudential and legal principles. Therefore, it proposes to change Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code to read as follows: “It is necessary to observe the equality of length, width and depth in retribution for injuries. This equality is calculated and enforced on the criminal based on the name of the crime in depth and the ratio of the length and width of the crime to the total area of the body of the victim.”
General and exclusive criminal law
Amir Etemadi
Abstract
Computer fraud refers to criminal behaviors carried out specifically through the use of computer networks. These offences have created new opportunities for fraudulent activity, particularly because computer-based fraud encompasses a wide range of deceptive conduct aimed at obtaining benefits without ...
Read More
Computer fraud refers to criminal behaviors carried out specifically through the use of computer networks. These offences have created new opportunities for fraudulent activity, particularly because computer-based fraud encompasses a wide range of deceptive conduct aimed at obtaining benefits without due entitlement. Evidence suggests that the financial and personal costs of such frauds—especially through methods such as identity theft and phishing—are substantial for both individual victims and society as a whole. Moreover, with the increasing accessibility of the internet—no longer confined to desktop computers but also available via tablets, smartphones, and handheld devices—the potential for individuals to fall victim to computer fraud has dramatically increased.In the Iranian penal system, computer fraud is addressed independently from traditional (non-computer) fraud. This distinction arises from the nature of the offence: computer fraud is not merely a case of fraud committed using a computer as a tool. Rather, the computer plays a fundamental and constitutive role in shaping the actus reus of the offence. Therefore, computer fraud in Iranian law falls under the category of offences committed within a computer-based context, rather than offences committed by means of a computer.According to Iranian law, any person who unlawfully obtains money, property, services, or financial advantages for themselves or another—by inputting, altering, deleting, creating, or suppressing data, or by disrupting a computer or telecommunications system—is considered to have committed computer fraud. For criminal liability to be established, both general intent and specific intent must be proven. General intent involves knowingly and willfully engaging in prohibited behaviors while being aware of the lack of authorization and the fact that the property belongs to another. Specific intent involves the aim to obtain financial gain or benefits for oneself or another individual.In contrast, under the English and Welsh legal system, computer fraud is not categorized as a standalone offence but is prosecuted under the broader umbrella of the general offence of fraud, as defined in the Fraud Act 2006. This includes three primary types: fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. For example, in fraud by false representation, the dishonest act may include phishing, pharming, presenting someone else's credit card, or using another person’s PIN at an ATM. These acts are not limited by medium and can be performed through digital platforms.Fraud by failing to disclose information can also occur via digital means—such as failing to disclose essential facts when renewing a television license online or applying for car insurance through an internet portal. In all such cases, the perpetrator must act with malicious intent, and ignorance may serve as a defense against establishing this element. However, in the context of fraud by false representation, recklessness can also satisfy the mental element required for liability. If the perpetrator is aware of the possibility that their representation is false but proceeds regardless, this may be sufficient to establish criminal liability. That said, recklessness may not suffice as mens rea for other forms of computer fraud, such as failure to disclose information or abuse of position.In both legal systems, specific intent remains a key requirement: the perpetrator must have acted with the intention of gaining a benefit or causing harm, even if that outcome is not ultimately realized.This article critically examines the key elements of computer fraud under Iranian, English, and Welsh law. It concludes that certain deficiencies exist in the Iranian legislative framework. These include the absence of a comprehensive general offence of fraud and the failure to recognize recklessness as a valid form of mens rea in the context of computer fraud. Addressing these shortcomings is essential for more effective legal responses to cyber-enabled criminal conduct. Furthermore, doing so would help reduce the over-proliferation of criminal statutes and eliminate the need for speculative interpretations concerning the offender’s mental state.
General and exclusive criminal law
mohammad rasool ahangaran; esmail honary ghane; Milad Heidari
Abstract
IntroductionThis study investigates the role and position of the state in facilitating or causing crimes committed by blue-collar offenders. It argues that many such crimes are not merely the result of individual intent, but are often shaped or indirectly induced by governmental policies and administrative ...
Read More
IntroductionThis study investigates the role and position of the state in facilitating or causing crimes committed by blue-collar offenders. It argues that many such crimes are not merely the result of individual intent, but are often shaped or indirectly induced by governmental policies and administrative conduct. By identifying these state-driven causes, the research aims to highlight unjust patterns of criminal attribution and propose a framework for mitigating the criminal responsibility of individuals who act under the influence of systemic pressures. The central premise is that assigning exclusive criminal responsibility to the immediate perpetrator—when state-induced conditions play a formative role—is both unjust and detrimental to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the goal is to foster a more equitable system that prevents violence and reinforces justice.MethodologyThis study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach. Through a comprehensive review of legal literature, statutory frameworks, and scholarly theories, it seeks to answer the central research question: To what extent can the government be regarded as a principal cause—rather than a mere facilitator—of crimes committed by blue-collar workers? The analysis is grounded in principles of general criminal law, causality, and the criminal liability of legal entities.FindingsThe study finds that, under certain conditions, the government may bear criminal liability when its actions or omissions serve not only as a background factor but as a direct and influential cause of criminal outcomes. While the concept of "government crime" remains vague in Iranian law, it is necessary to invoke established principles regarding the criminal liability of legal persons to properly assess the government’s role. A distinction is drawn between crimes committed by the government itself and crimes that occur within a state-created or state-tolerated context. The focus of this study is on the latter.A government may be deemed the stronger causal factor in criminal behavior when its policies or actions are shown to have directly influenced the criminal conduct, and where the individual agent’s material and moral contribution does not sever the causal link. Liability may stem from deliberate acts, administrative negligence, or omissions that have foreseeable consequences. In such cases, responsibility should not be placed solely on individuals—often working-class stewards who lack power and may act out of ignorance, distress, or coercion. When direct and effective governmental control over the outcome is apparent through rational analysis, attributing criminal results solely to these individuals is inconsistent with principles of justice.Moreover, this framework provides an explanation for how certain state policies—such as abrupt changes in fuel pricing, deceptive intervention in financial markets, or unprofessional decision-making during economic crises—can provoke harmful behavior in individuals, including acts of deception, aggression, or fraud. In such instances, the state’s role may be legally recognized as the principal cause. However, this attribution must be approached with caution. Holding the state criminally liable for all harmful outcomes would risk undermining key legal principles such as the legality of criminal law, the individuality of criminal responsibility, and the presumption of innocence.Innovation (Value)This research offers a novel approach by emphasizing the active and often overlooked role of the state in the genesis of criminal behavior. It critiques the traditional assumption that the state is solely a guardian of law and order, revealing how state structures, when dysfunctional or coercive, can become enablers or instigators of crime. By bringing attention to these structural factors, the study contributes to a more balanced and systemic understanding of criminal causation. It also seeks to prevent the imposition of unjust and ineffective punishments by uncovering hidden causes and shifting the focus toward collective and institutional accountability. In doing so, it integrates criminological insights with doctrines of criminal law, offering a preventative and remedial contribution to legal scholarship.ConclusionThe government can be criminally liable not only as a facilitator but, in exceptional circumstances, as the principal cause of crimes committed by others. For this to be established, certain criteria must be met. The government must have exerted a direct and substantial influence on the criminal outcome, and this influence must be traceable through rational and legal analysis. Furthermore, the material and moral elements of the individual offender’s conduct must not disrupt the causal chain linking the government’s actions to the resulting harm. In such cases, criminal liability may be attributed to the state, particularly when criminal malice or culpable negligence can be demonstrated.At the same time, the state’s liability must be narrowly defined to avoid excessive generalization. The government cannot be held responsible for all criminal acts committed under its jurisdiction. Instead, a clear legal framework is needed to define the boundaries of state crime and establish when criminal liability can justifiably be assigned to governmental entities. Only then can justice be preserved for individuals acting under coercive conditions, and the broader goals of accountability and prevention be achieved.
General and exclusive criminal law
Ahmad Haji dehabadi; Mehdi Shidaian Arani; Ahmad Rahimi
Abstract
In making the law, several criteria such as structural order, comprehensiveness, and usefulness should be taken into consideration by the legislator so that the result of the legislative process is of high quality. This importance is doubly important in the substantive criminal laws, especially the factors ...
Read More
In making the law, several criteria such as structural order, comprehensiveness, and usefulness should be taken into consideration by the legislator so that the result of the legislative process is of high quality. This importance is doubly important in the substantive criminal laws, especially the factors that reduce criminal liability. In fact, among the laws governing the society, the substantive penal laws are of great importance in that they represent the norms and values of the society and guarantee the fulfillment of the natural human needs such as justice, equality, stability and social order. In fact, substantive criminal laws, including the Islamic Penal Code of 1392, are established with the aim of creating and supporting social order and realizing basic values such as justice. It is on this basis that these laws have a stricter enforcement guarantee (penalties) than other laws. Among the different parts of this law, the second chapter from the fourth part of the first book, i.e. "factors that mitigate criminal liability", are of double importance considering that they were established with the aim of removing the criminal character of the act or removing the punishment. Therefore, compliance with the substantive and formal requirements of legislation is a worthy and necessary expectation for them. However, looking at the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 as an example of the most recent major substantive criminal laws, it seems that some legislative requirements have not been properly considered in some parts of this law. Among these cases, the second chapter of the fourth part of the first book of this law is "Factors mitigating criminal liability".Based on this, the present research is intended to examine this part of the Islamic Penal Code in the light of the requirements of the legislation; However, due to the fact that there are many criteria and requirements in this regard and the assessment of this part of the law from the point of view of all of them does not fit in this area, therefore, in this article, an effort is made to evaluate this part of the law from the point of view of the requirements of "structural order". "Usefulness" and "Comprehensiveness" should be examined as examples of the superior measures of legislation. In this regard, the main question of the current research, which was conducted using the analytical-descriptive method and using library data, is how are the factors that mitigate criminal liability in the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 evaluated from the perspective of the requirements of structural order, comprehensiveness and usefulness of the law?It is worth mentioning that due to the fact that it has not been a long time since the legislation/law writing technique has been paid attention to in Iran, therefore, not many researches have been done in this regard. Among the articles written in this regard, we can refer to the article "Examination of the New Islamic Penal Code in the Criteria of Legislation" written by Ruhollah Akrami, which was published in the 82nd issue of the Majlis and Strategy magazine. The distinguishing feature of the current research is that it specifically examines a part of the Islamic Penal Code from the perspective of the requirements of structural order, usefulness and comprehensiveness of the law, and in addition to the specific evaluation criteria, the scope of the investigation is also narrow and makes for a richer evaluation.Examining the factors that reduce criminal responsibility from this point of view shows that there are many criticisms on the performance of the legislator; Including:A) In relation to the need for structural order, considering the title "factors that mitigate criminal responsibility" and not dividing the articles under this part of the law according to the differences in factors that mitigate responsibility and justifiable causes of the crime are inappropriate. Therefore, the title "factors affecting responsibility" is suggested for this section. Also, the reference of reluctance ruling in Article 151 of this chapter has not been done properly and it is appropriate to amend this matter in the process of revising the law.b) From the point of view of necessity and usefulness, it seems that the repetition of the verdict of committing a crime while intoxicated in Article 307 despite Article 154 of the Criminal Code, applying a limited punishment to a person who becomes insane after issuing a definitive sentence and repeating the age of puberty in Article 147 of the Civil Code despite Article 1210 of the Civil Code has not been necessary and useful. Based on this, it is appropriate that similar articles such as articles 307 and 147 are not repeated in the amendments of the law, and the punishment of the insane should be conditional on his recovery and recovery.c) Regarding the requirement of comprehensiveness, despite the fact that expanding the scope of intoxicating substances in Article 154 is considered a positive and forward-looking measure, the lack of classification of insanity and the vagueness of the relative impairment of the will are considered to be in conflict with the requirement of comprehensiveness, and it is appropriate that the legislator revises the law with the possibility of reducing the punishment. In such an assumption to predict.
General and exclusive criminal law
Mehdi Zakavi
Abstract
The criminal justice system distinguishes between a person who has committed multiple crimes or violated multiple articles of criminal law with the same behavior. Therefore, the legislator gives the judges the authority to increase the punishment for dealing with such a person. In this regard, the legislator ...
Read More
The criminal justice system distinguishes between a person who has committed multiple crimes or violated multiple articles of criminal law with the same behavior. Therefore, the legislator gives the judges the authority to increase the punishment for dealing with such a person. In this regard, the legislator has left some challenges in the Islamic Penal Law of 2012 that may cause problems in the implementation of these laws in this field; From this point of view, the purpose of the authors is to clarify the ambiguities and problems related to the number of criminal titles that may arise in the implementation phase and to solve them as much as possible to overcome these difficulties. Sentencing is often one of the most challenging issues in general criminal law. The double title (spirit, credit) of the crime as one of the reasons for increasing the punishment is not excluded from the scope of this law. The Criminal Law of the Iranian Parliament distinguishes between a person who violates several articles of the criminal law with one act and a person who violates only one criminal title with his act. Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code was established in a situation where the law states many titles of crimes in criminal crimes, but it has left many challenges. According to the author's statements in this research, the most important challenges are in several issues, among which we can mention the ignorance and doubt in how to recognize serious torture, the ineffectiveness of severe torture and its consequences, how to use sensitivity and punishment. . supplement , and the border between too many titles and too many results. In this book, due to the importance of legislation and legal interpretation, it has been tried to provide answers to resolve these ambiguities. The criminal responsibility of legal entities is recognized in the criminal laws of Iran, and the application of these rules to individuals is not specific to them. Considering the new nature of recognizing the criminal responsibility of these people in Iran's criminal law and the change of Iran's criminal laws from a person-centered perspective to a legal personality, it is difficult to implement multilateral rules. They committed crimes against these people. Among the most important of these problems, we can point out the unity and different punishments for the legal person, which is the subject of Article 20 of the Islamic Penal Law approved in 2012. In addition, in implementing the multi-purpose provisions of Article 134 regarding legal entities, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be limited in determining first the heaviest punishment and then the heaviest punishment and applying two types of punishment for legal entities. Businesses that make it impossible to apply genuine multilateral rules that apply to legal entities such as individuals. A criminal who commits a series of crimes is undoubtedly bound to legal retribution according to the will of the legislator and society. From the point of view of criminology, the multiplicity of crimes of the criminal indicates his dangerous situation, which has been the focus of legislative policies and the issuing of sentences has had ups and downs. This category was a way to reform or intimidate criminals. The Islamic Penal Code approved in 2011 and followed by the Convict Conviction Law in 2019, the last will of the legislator in Iran's law on various types of crimes, is due to the principle of combining punishment with punishment. Changes in the provisions of the previous law, legal doctrine and legal standards of the courts caused serious problems in the adaptation of the judicial system by solving some real problems and precedents. In this way, sometimes the uncertainty of the court's decision in cases where criminals are committed is between the material majority and the moral majority, and the law and principles have not yet been proposed by the lawyers. If in doubt, seek refuge. The purpose of this article is to examine the main problems of the court in practice and during the proceedings.
General and exclusive criminal law
Mohammad Hasan Hasani
Abstract
Rape and consensual sexual intercourse are governed by distinct situational and obligatory rulings. The distinction between these two is particularly significant when considering the divine and human rights aspects. Rape involves a violation of both divine and human rights, while obedient sexual intercourse ...
Read More
Rape and consensual sexual intercourse are governed by distinct situational and obligatory rulings. The distinction between these two is particularly significant when considering the divine and human rights aspects. Rape involves a violation of both divine and human rights, while obedient sexual intercourse is primarily governed by divine principles. This fundamental difference necessitates a differential approach, focusing on protecting the victim in cases of rape. One of the legal challenges arising in this context is the classification of sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage, and the subsequent civil and criminal liabilities resulting from it. This issue has led to various jurisprudential viewpoints and judicial decisions.Some of the key challenges related to this issue include: First, whether sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage should be recognized as adultery from a divine perspective when it involves the woman's consent, and as adultery from a human rights perspective when it occurs without the woman’s consent. In this case, the adulterer would be held responsible for paying the dowry (mahr al-mesl) and compensation for virginity (arsh al-bekareh) to the victimized woman. Second, whether repeated sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage would absolve the adulterer from the responsibility of paying the dowry and compensation for virginity, especially after the first instance of rape. Third, whether real non-consent is only attributed to minors and those who are insane. Fourth, whether ignorance of the nature and illegitimacy of adultery by adults can be considered as non-consent. Finally, whether there is a legal justification for imposing responsibility for moral damage compensation due to adultery with a promise of marriage.This paper, employing a descriptive-analytical method and examining jurisprudential-legal theories and judicial procedures, argues that sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage can have different legal classifications depending on the perspective of the parties involved. The distinction between divine and human rights necessitates that, just as doubt about the divine aspect of rape may lead to exemption from the death penalty, ambiguity surrounding the victim’s consent in the human rights context obligates the rapist to pay conventional dowry (mahr al-mesl) and virginity compensation (arsh al-bekareh).For the deterrence and prevention of adultery, it is essential to uphold the principle that the adulterer is responsible for paying the dowry and virginity compensation to the victim of adultery committed under the guise of a marriage promise. In addition to the potential physical harm, such as the loss of the hymen, adultery causes significant loss of dignity and spiritual credibility for the victim. The Islamic Penal Code of 2013 remains silent on the issue of moral damages compensation in addition to the dowry. Jurisprudential opinions on this matter are divided. Some jurists oppose moral damages compensation beyond the dowry, while others support it. However, the classification of adultery as a hudud crime does not preclude the possibility of moral damages compensation. Section 14(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (2013) explicitly prohibits moral damages for crimes categorized as diyat and ta’zirat under Sharia law, but this does not extend to crimes classified as hudud. Furthermore, Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act (1960) acknowledges the responsibility for moral damages compensation in cases of illicit cohabitation through deceit, threats, or abuse of authority.Therefore, adultery with the promise of marriage falls under the recent legal provisions, obliging the adulterer to compensate the victim’s spiritual damage in addition to the dowry (mahr al-mesl). In other words, there is a legal justification for imposing moral damage compensation due to adultery with the promise of marriage.The frequent sexual intercourse of a woman with a man, in the hope of fulfilling the promise of marriage, does not absolve the adulterer from responsibility for paying the dowry (mahr al-mesl) and compensation for virginity (arsh al-bekareh) in cases of rape, especially in the initial instance. Ignorance regarding the nature and illegitimacy of adultery, particularly in adults or individuals who lack understanding, can be interpreted as non-consent. Adultery with a minor, or a girl under the age of eighteen, who is unaware of the nature and illegitimacy of the act, should be considered an example of doubt regarding illicit sexual intercourse. According to Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code (2013), it is unnecessary to address the existence of real consent in such cases, as legal logic dictates that this should be attached to the crime of adultery. The victimized girl, in such cases, should be compensated for the harm caused.In conclusion, the legal landscape surrounding sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage presents numerous challenges and ambiguities. These challenges highlight the need for a nuanced approach that considers both divine and human rights aspects. By ensuring the responsibility of the adulterer to compensate the victim, including for moral damages, the legal system can uphold justice and protect the dignity and rights of the victim. The complexity of this issue requires careful consideration of jurisprudential principles, judicial precedents, and the evolving legal framework to ensure fair and just outcomes for those affected by such offenses.
General and exclusive criminal law
Ahmadreza Emtehani; ali Mohammadi Jurkuyeh; Javad Nadi Ouj Baghzi
Abstract
The recent implementation of the law aimed at reducing imprisonment penalties, as approved by the legislator, has brought about numerous changes to the principles governing the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment, especially when compared to the regulations in place in 1392. These ...
Read More
The recent implementation of the law aimed at reducing imprisonment penalties, as approved by the legislator, has brought about numerous changes to the principles governing the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment, especially when compared to the regulations in place in 1392. These modifications in the criteria for determining punishment, along with the intensification and reduction of penalties and the rationale behind differentiating between various crimes and their similar counterparts, have presented both judges and legal scholars with a wide range of theoretical and practical challenges. These ambiguities have resulted in divergent interpretations of Article 134 of the Amended Criminal Code, which has, in turn, led to potential harm to the rights of the accused. The central question of this research, therefore, is: What specific ambiguities and challenges are posed by the amended Article 134, and what possible solutions can be offered to resolve them?This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to explore the provisions surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment under the current law. It seeks to analyze the key challenges within this legal framework, which include: distinguishing between different crimes and similar ones, the method of aggregating similar crimes as opposed to different ones, the timing for recognizing multiple crimes for the application of multiplicity rules, the question of whether the rules of material multiplicity apply retroactively in the context of multiple criminal laws, the criteria for establishing material multiplicity concerning the necessity—or lack thereof—of a time gap between multiple offenses, and the simultaneous aggregation of multiplicity and repetition of crimes.The legal provisions addressing the issue of multiple crimes in our country have their roots in French criminal law, dating back to 1304. Over the course of many revisions, the legislator eventually passed new regulations concerning multiple crimes in 2019, followed by a subsequent amendment in 1999 as part of the Law on Reducing the Punishment of Imprisonment. However, due to the widespread application of these provisions in the criminal justice system, they have generated significant practical issues, leading to complications for judges and, consequently, violations of the rights of the accused. This article aims to thoroughly explain the provisions related to the material multiplicity of crimes under the Criminal Code and its amendments, addressing the most pressing challenges associated with this legal institution.By identifying these challenges and proposing solutions to overcome them, this research endeavors to provide clarity through the interpretation of the law and an examination of the legislator’s intentions. Additionally, it aims to ensure alignment with the overarching principles that govern criminal law, thereby proposing a unified approach to criteria and procedural matters in this domain. Offering solutions and resolving scientific and practical ambiguities is one of the most significant contributions of this research, which can greatly benefit the criminal justice system and help achieve the most just outcomes possible.One long-standing issue in the context of punitive measures has been the question of multiplicity of crimes. Multiplicity of crimes is a key aspect of the individualized punishment process and often serves as a reason for the escalation of penalties. General aggravating factors are attributes that are linked to any crime and, when identified by a judge, necessitate an increase in the punishment. These factors are not specific to any one crime but can apply broadly across different offenses. In many countries worldwide, individuals who commit multiple crimes are seen as having a more entrenched delinquent nature, and therefore, a heavier penalty is often imposed to facilitate their rehabilitation. The goal is to reintegrate the offender into society, purified from criminal tendencies and free from the risks of recidivism.In terms of classification, multiplicity of crimes can be divided into two categories: material multiplicity and credit multiplicity. Material multiplicity, also referred to as real or objective multiplicity, occurs when a perpetrator commits two or more independent criminal acts without having received a definitive conviction for any of those offenses. On the other hand, credit multiplicity refers to situations in which an individual commits a single act, but multiple criminal charges can be applied to that single act, and the individual has not received a final conviction for any of those charges. Given that this research is focused specifically on material multiplicity, a more detailed discussion of credit multiplicity and its associated rules will be avoided due to its limited relevance to the scope of this study.In conclusion, the challenges surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes as addressed in the amended Criminal Code are substantial, and the need for clearer legal interpretations and solutions is urgent. By examining the key issues and offering solutions, this research contributes valuable insights into how the judicial system can address these challenges while safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the equitable application of justice. Through careful analysis and proposed reforms, the study aims to facilitate the correct implementation of laws related to material multiplicity, ultimately improving the efficiency and fairness of the criminal justice system.
General and exclusive criminal law
Hossein Mirmohammad Sadeghi; Nastaran Aghaee; Mohammad javad Darvishzadeh
Abstract
Under Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2012), the legislator has outlined the sentence of repetition in Hadd crimes. In accordance with this article, the punishment for committing a Hadd offense for the fourth time is death. However, neither the text of the law nor the legal doctrine ...
Read More
Under Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2012), the legislator has outlined the sentence of repetition in Hadd crimes. In accordance with this article, the punishment for committing a Hadd offense for the fourth time is death. However, neither the text of the law nor the legal doctrine addresses the case in which there is a mistake in counting the number of times the Hadd is applied. As an example, in the event that the perpetrator is punished four times with the same Hadd punishment, the death sentence can be imposed on them the fifth time, in accordance with Article 136.The present study is intended to answer the following question: "What is the effect of making a mistake in counting the repetitions of the Hadd punishment?" There are many examples of making a mistake in counting the number of times the Hadd punishment has been enforced, and it is possible to approximate more or less the number of repetitions, even though a number of examples are provided in the jurisprudence in this case.It is possible to consider three hypotheses in relation to the impact of the mistake on the punishment for repeating the Hadd: 1) The absolute absence of the consequence of the mistake in counting how many times the Hadd is executed, and the allowance of executing the death sentence in subsequent rounds. 2) The relative impact of the mistake, in such a way that if the perpetrator is responsible for the mistake, the mistake is not effective in counting the number of times the sentence is executed, and if the perpetrator is not the person responsible for the mistake, the fulfillment of the mistake will result in the exemption from the death sentence. 3) The absolute effect of the mistake and the prohibition of executing the death sentence in future rounds.In the present research, firstly, various cases in which a mistake was found in counting the number of repetitions were examined, then the three hypotheses mentioned were assessed based on the examples mentioned, and finally, the hypothesis of the absolute effect of the mistake in the number of repetitions, which caused the punishment prescribed in Article 136 to be extinguished is favored.
General and exclusive criminal law
Abbas Mohammadkhani
Abstract
Qisas, as one of the most important punishments that has entered Iran's criminal laws from Sharia sources, has causes and obstacles that distinguish it from other punishments. The present article, which is written with a descriptive analytical method, is in the position of explaining the obstacles to ...
Read More
Qisas, as one of the most important punishments that has entered Iran's criminal laws from Sharia sources, has causes and obstacles that distinguish it from other punishments. The present article, which is written with a descriptive analytical method, is in the position of explaining the obstacles to the implementation of qisas and their practical application, as well as the separation of these obstacles from the obstacles to proving qisas and the causes of its downfall, which will also have important practical effects. According to this research, the obstacles to the implementation of qisas in the Iranian law are the obstacles that hinder its implementation despite the existence of qisas, and despite them, the perpetrator's qisas is canceled forever or for a period of time. Known or unknown will be delayed. These obstacles are of two categories. Some categories, such as the pregnancy of a woman and the need to pay the ransom to the perpetrator by the the victim’s heirs, only temporarily stop the execution of qisas, in which case the owner of the right to qisas has no choice but to either forgive and or to wait until the obstacle is removed and then executes qisas. Therefore, he cannot demand ransom from him without perpetrator's consent. But another group of obstacles to execution of qisas are obstacles that permanently or for an indefinite period exclude the possibility of execution of qisas, which include the death of a person or escape and lack of access to him. In this assumption, the legislator, following the opinion of some jurists, has considered the owner of the right of qisas to demand ransom even without the consent of the perpetrator; without considering the right of qisas to be void in the cases where the possibility of qisas is provided later, in the latter case, if the owner of the right has not waived his right, he can demand the execution of qisas by returning the payment. Similar to the situation where the perpetrator is arrested after the escape of a person and taking the ransom from his property. The only exception to this among the obstacles with an indefinite period is the situation in which, despite issuing a sentence for qisas, its execution requires the payment of ransom to "some of victim’s heirs", such as when some of heirs forgive the perpetrator and others demand ransom. Therefore, heirs demanding qisas will first give the share of the pardoners to perpetrator and give the share of the rest to them and then execute the qisas.Hence, in line with the articles 450 and 558 of the Islamic Penal Code, differentiation between the impermissibility of qisas and its impossibility, in any case where execution of qisas is not possible for an indefinite period, the owner of the right, while maintaining his right, is allowed it will be on demand. Therefore, if one of the conjoined twins commits an murder, even though qisas is not applicable in order to avoid harm to the other person, and the owner of the right can demand ransom, but if some time after that, If the said twins are separated, the right of qisas will still be applicable; Such a thing clearly shows the difference between the obstacles to execution and the causes of its downfall. It is not permissible to carry out qisas in the causes of qisas, and if the owner of the right harms a person after it has fallen, he has committed a crime that will be subject to qisas. Contrary to the obstacles of execution of qisas, which, despite the permissibility of execution of qisas, it is not possible to apply it, and therefore, whenever such a possibility is provided, its permissibility will remain in force. On this basis, the death of a person is one of the permanent obstacles to the implementation of qisas. In other words, only credit matters cause qisas to fall, and death is one of the real things that make qisas execution impossible.
General and exclusive criminal law
Ali Kakoo juybari; Rajab Goldoust juybari; Mahdi Esmaeli
Abstract
VThe importance of murder is understandable not only in terms of the amount of punishment provided for it, but also due to the determination of criminal liability in this type of crime which has been controversial. Therefore, it is possible to pay attention and impose punishment on the perpetrator of ...
Read More
VThe importance of murder is understandable not only in terms of the amount of punishment provided for it, but also due to the determination of criminal liability in this type of crime which has been controversial. Therefore, it is possible to pay attention and impose punishment on the perpetrator of a crime if he has certain conditions and characteristics; This means that for the realization of criminal responsibility, the mere occurrence of material behavior is not enough; Rather, criminal behavior must be caused by a conventional, free and self-aware emotional state, and the issue becomes more controversial when the killer's motive for committing murder is to obtain pleasure and spiritual, physical and sexual satisfaction; If this acquisition of mental, physical and sexual pleasure leads to murder, along with harassment and violence, we will face a deviant criminal type that has another mental disorder, abuse or sadism; Serial killers, who usually kill their victims by torture and offend, can be considered as examples of sadistic killers, and in Iran, these kinds of murders are referred to as Sadistic Murder, which were no separate title in criminal law and In Iran, it can be considered under the rule of retribution, or else, it will be dealt with by the rules of punishment and atonement. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that one shall not ignore the pre-sadistic or metasadistic conditions or the conditions that expose people to become a sadist. Moreover, we shall underline the effects of metasadism in many crimes, including murder, factors such as heredity, individual and social failures, domestic violence in Childhood, social environment and such factors may lead a person to become sadistic. The study of the criminal type of such perpetrators who have criminal capacity and dangerous state will be of great help in the field of causes and treatment of this phenomenon; This requires that Other killers are annoying (sadistic killers) be studied from various dimensions so that we can formulate a disciplined system of criminal responsibility for them. A sadistic killer is neither mentally healthy nor without liability. The mental illness of a sadistic killer is mainly under the category of neurosis (neuros), in such a way that the person has full connection with external realities and his perception and will is in a situation that makes him responsible for his actions in terms of psychiatry and criminal law. If his/her illness reaches the level of psychosis and the person is cut off from the real world, the defense of madness can be applied. However, there are significant differences of opinion in the definition of insanity, the separation of total mental disorder from relative mental disorder, and the reference for the diagnosis of insanity. Historical research shows that the treatment of mental criminals by human societies has not been the same since the beginning of time and the reactions have changed according to the progress of human knowledge, but today in most countries of the world, regarding people with mental disorders, differential policy - Support is adopted. These legal protections for these people have caused some people to pretend to be crazy in order to get rid of the burden of criminal responsibility, so it is very important to determine the exact criteria in this matter. Iran's criminal law has had a protective approach towards these people from the beginning until now. In the latest legal developments in Iran's criminal law, Article 149 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392 tried to resolve the flaws in Article 51 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1370, but the approach of this law towards people with relative mental disorders such as sadistic mental disorders is not clear. Certainly, mental disorders have a wide spectrum, some of which make a person irresponsible and some make a person relatively responsible. According to the criminal law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a sadistic murderer has never been able to use the defense of her madness or mental illness and has been sentenced to the maximum legal punishment. In the present contribution, we consider whether the sadistic killer who committed the murder had any disorder or not and whether madness be invoked if a sadistic murderer is mentally disturbed? Sadism in murder is also examined from a medical and criminal law perspective.
General and exclusive criminal law
Abdorreza Lotfi; Reza Dehghanian
Abstract
According to Imami jurisprudence and the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, committing adultery in some circumstances may result in a minimum punishment and in other circumstances, may be subject to a maximum punishment. This issue is very important in the penal system of Islam and the criminal laws of Iran. ...
Read More
According to Imami jurisprudence and the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, committing adultery in some circumstances may result in a minimum punishment and in other circumstances, may be subject to a maximum punishment. This issue is very important in the penal system of Islam and the criminal laws of Iran. Considering that one of the examples of the application of the minimum punishment is the Lack of Ehsan for a man or a woman, and according to Article 227 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, travel excludes husband and wife from the Ehsan, This question is raised that traveling in the absolute sense can cause the perpetrator of adultery to leave the Ehsan or other conditions are necessary? Considering the descriptive-analytical study of the views presented in this research, it seems that the basic feature of Ehsan for passengers is the existence of a customary ability to have a marital relationship with the wife or husband at any time he or she wants. On the other hand, presenting a model of religious distance as a criterion for leaving Ehsan is contrary to the content of popular narrations. Therefore, determining the religious distance as a criterion for leaving Ehsan will not be compatible with the criterion of customary ability as the famous saying of the jurists, which has been discussed in detail.
General and exclusive criminal law
Mohammad rasool Ahangaran; Mehrdad Saeedi
Abstract
In cases where the blood money for the killer exceeds that of the victim, and the avengers of blood demand Qisas (retaliation), attaining the right of Qisas requires restitution of the difference in Diyeh to the person being avenged. The responsibility for paying the difference in Diyeh varies depending ...
Read More
In cases where the blood money for the killer exceeds that of the victim, and the avengers of blood demand Qisas (retaliation), attaining the right of Qisas requires restitution of the difference in Diyeh to the person being avenged. The responsibility for paying the difference in Diyeh varies depending on the circumstances. It can be the responsibility of the owner of the right of retribution (the victim or the avengers of blood), the person or persons who are not avenged against, or the avenge (one administering retaliation) and their accomplice(s). However, if the issue of complicity in an intentional crime is not raised, the payment of Diyeh is solely the responsibility of the owner of the right of retribution. For example, when a man knowingly and intentionally kills a woman, the avengers of blood must pay him half of the killer's Diyeh.Despite the jurisprudential background and legislative history of Diyeh, the Iranian legislator has not stated its specific provisions in an independent chapter in the new Islamic criminal code approved in 2013, instead allocating various provisions to scattered sections. As a result, new issues in the judicial procedure face unresolved challenges due to the lack of a definitive text. One objective and factual issue that arises in a criminal case is when a third party (not the avenger of blood), without the permission of the avengers of blood, pays the difference in the killer's Diyeh during the execution of criminal sentences in the judicial fund. In such cases, questions arise regarding the approach to be adopted and the nature of this legal action. According to Article 427 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013, the nature of the payment of Diyeh by the avengers of blood is to compensate for the damage caused, create balance and equality between the killer and the victim, and it is an imperative rule, not a condition for the emergence of the right to retribution (not a favorable rule). For this reason, as soon as the crime occurs, the avenger of blood has the right to retaliation, but the retaliation depends on the payment of the difference in Diyeh. If the right of retribution were based on the payment of the difference, and the guardian retaliated without paying, he would also be retaliated against. However, according to the rule of 427, he commits ta'zeer. Legislators have remained silent about the nature of payment of the difference by a third party in the Islamic criminal Code, leading to challenges and fundamental differences of opinion among lawyers and within the judicial procedure of criminal courts. One of these challenges is whether, by paying the difference in Diyeh through a third party, there is a possibility of retaliation for the avengers of blood. Additionally, once Diyeh is paid, does the third party become a stranger without rights to it? Do the rules of debt apply, or can a third party or the avengers of blood go directly to the criminal enforcement unit for reimbursement? Does the difference in Diyeh become the property of the killer or their heirs, allowing any interference, or is it solely for the fulfillment of the killer's retaliation, refundable by the third party before the retaliation? The answer to all these challenges depends on explaining the nature and examining the legal effects of this act, specifically the third-party payment of the difference in Diyeh. The importance of this matter goes beyond the presentation of a legal theory, and adhering to one of the proposed views on the nature of the third-party payment of the difference in Diyeh can ultimately determine whether the killer faces retaliation or is released from it until another time.The present research, which is novel in its kind, after explaining the basic concepts of the research, separates the nature of the Diyeh from the difference in the Diyeh and then examines the nature of the difference in the Diyeh paid by the third party from the perspective of jurists and judicial procedure and while criticizing the views of the opponents, tries to present a theory in accordance with the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence and law and their principles and rules.
General and exclusive criminal law
Abolfazl Mohamad alikhani; Hassan Alipour; Mohamadreza Elahimanesh
Abstract
A compound crime refers to a crime that involves two or more behaviors. The combination of these behaviors, which determine a distinct nature separate from simple or single-behavior crimes, sets apart compound crimes. The multi-behavior nature of a compound crime does not solely rely on the criminality ...
Read More
A compound crime refers to a crime that involves two or more behaviors. The combination of these behaviors, which determine a distinct nature separate from simple or single-behavior crimes, sets apart compound crimes. The multi-behavior nature of a compound crime does not solely rely on the criminality of each behavior but on the presence of these behaviors in the specified order stated by law.Criminal law and judicial procedures generally adopt a straightforward approach when investigating criminal behavior. With a few exceptions, such as jurisdiction or law enforcement, they do not focus on the substantive differences in criminal behavior. The fundamental characteristic distinguishing compound crimes from other crimes is the longitudinal continuity of two or more behaviors. This means compound crimes are formed when the perpetrator or perpetrators engage in different behavior on two or more occasions. Consequently, the crime is separated from the resulting crime, which is the outcome of the behavior itself and not the behavior alone. However, despite the multi-behavior nature of compound crimes, it is essential to note that this crime is primarily equated with the resulting crime. In some instances, the second or last behavior in a compound crime may be considered the result of the crime, differentiating it from multiple, continuous, and habitual crimes.The multiplicity of behavior in a compound offense is the primary condition for committing the crime. However, this characteristic also brings it close to multiple crimes. In a compound offense, the individual behaviors do not necessarily constitute separate crimes. Instead, their presence together leads to the commission of a compound crime. On the other hand, in multiple crimes, each behavior is considered a distinct crime, and the multiplicity of the crimes occurs when the perpetrator commits multiple behaviors, with each behavior implying an independent crime. This is the main difference between these two categories. In a continuous crime, a single behavior results in the commission of the crime, even though that behavior must occur over time. Therefore, the singular behavior in a continuous crime sets it apart from compound crimes involving multiple behaviors. In the case of habitual crimes, similar criminal behaviors are repeated. Participation in a compound crime is based on collusion; thus, the collaboration and performance of one of the criminal acts by the partners lead to its occurrence. Legally, all partners do not need to engage in all criminal behaviors. If each partner commits one of the criminal behaviors, participation in the compound offense is established. In this scenario, the role of an accomplice also depends on their cooperation in all behaviors or at least in the first behavior by assisting. Therefore, if the accomplice assists and cooperates with the perpetrator in any of the behaviors of the compound crime, their participation is fulfilled. The accomplice is not legally required to cooperate in all the behaviors. Attempting to commit a compound crime is associated with completing the first behavior. The perpetrator performs the first behavior entirely but is prohibited from engaging in the second or subsequent behaviors due to an involuntary factor. It should be noted that the failure to perform the first act should not be considered an attempt.This research employs library sources and analyzes judicial opinions using a descriptive and analytical approach. It has concluded that despite compound crimes' distinct nature and characteristics, which differ significantly from simple and single-behavior crimes, they lack a clear legal position and procedure. The suggestion put forth by this article is that categories related to the behavior of crimes, mainly compound crimes, should be regulated through judicial procedures rather than relying solely on legal articles due to the standard challenges involved.
