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
)
