Criminal law and criminology
Reza Rahbar; Gholamhossein Elham
Abstract
Research Problem
Given the developments and changes that have occurred in the teachings of criminal law, new theories have been expressed about crimes and punishments. Based on these theories, in the present era, the implementation of punishments will no longer definitely reduce criminal behavior because ...
Read More
Research Problem
Given the developments and changes that have occurred in the teachings of criminal law, new theories have been expressed about crimes and punishments. Based on these theories, in the present era, the implementation of punishments will no longer definitely reduce criminal behavior because by examining societies, it can be understood that mere intimidation through punishment is an incomplete and failed model. Therefore, in this era, legislators have changed their approach and have made the primary goal of implementing punishment, instead of punishing the criminal, his reform and rehabilitation, and punishment is used as the last method against the perpetrator. Accordingly, in order to achieve this goal, in various societies, in low-risk crimes, the institution of postponing the issuance of a sentence has been established as a criminal policy based on mitigation and greater support for perpetrators of non-dangerous crimes, in order to provide the basis for the reform of the perpetrator.
The Iranian legislator, in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392, realizing the importance of this institution, in Article 40 of the aforementioned law, has accepted the application of this institution in crimes of the 6th to 8th degree, stating a series of conditions. But the main issue and question that arises in this regard is whether it is possible to use the aforementioned institution of conciliation in the issue of multiple crimes and postpone the issuance of a sentence for minor crimes by citing the criteria mentioned in Article 40?!
There is no specific legal text in this regard and no statement from the legislator regarding its feasibility or not is seen, while the aforementioned issue is one of the important issues of criminal law that has caused differences of opinion among lawyers and, consequently, judges of the judiciary and must be addressed and its foundations explained.
Research Background
Numerous and varied studies and articles have been written in the field of the institution of postponing the issuance of sentences, but none of the aforementioned studies have been responsible for expressing and investigating the issue of the present research and expressing the relationship and relationship between the institution of postponement and the issue of multiple crimes.
Some of the studies conducted in the field of postponing the issuance of sentences will be mentioned below:
- Ghasemi Garmi, Sahar; Jafari, Dr. Mohammad Javad; Studying the postponement of the issuance of a criminal conviction from a legal and ethical perspective, Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology »Winter 1400, Year 16 - Issue 5
In this study, the authors have examined the ethical and legal aspects of the institution of postponement of the issuance of a sentence and it has no connection with the research issue under discussion.
- Farhoud, Naghmeh; Khakzad, Reza; Postponement of the issuance of a sentence in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392, Journal: Studies in Political Science, Law and Jurisprudence »Spring 1400, Volume 7 - Issue 1
In this study, the authors have examined the nature of the institution of postponement of the issuance of a sentence and there is no mention of the relationship and relationship between the institution of the aforementioned institution and the institution of multiple crimes.
- Fathabadi, Hossein; Mahdavi Sabet, Mohammad Ali; Ashouri, Mohammad; Mehra, Nasrin; Postponement of the issuance of a sentence, minimal intervention; Individualization of punishment with a comparative approach, Journal: Private and Criminal Law Research, Fall 2019 - Issue 41
Research Method
In this research, the author, using a descriptive-analytical method and citing library resources, has mentioned the jurisprudential-legal foundations of those in favor and those opposed to the postponement of the sentence, and has tried to solve this problem using the existing legal and jurisprudential capacities.
Research findings and conclusion
As a conclusion and statement of the research findings, it should be acknowledged that in the issue of assessing the feasibility of implementing the provisions on the postponement of the sentence in the assumption of multiple crimes, the view of those in favor of implementing the aforementioned institution, based on evidence of non-contradiction with the philosophy of the institution of the postponement of the sentence and the application of the legal articles on postponement and the jurisprudential rule of "al-ta'zir bid al-hakim" and... is more consistent with the spirit of the law and Sharia, and thus it should be considered possible to implement the rules on the postponement of the sentence.
Criminal law and criminology
Vahid Bazvand; Farid Mohseni
Abstract
Problem and BackgroundIranian nomadic communities, owing to their traditional social structures, tightly knit kinship networks, and strong clan-based norms, may in some circumstances become settings in which severe violence, honor-based conflicts, and retaliatory cycles are reproduced and normalized. ...
Read More
Problem and BackgroundIranian nomadic communities, owing to their traditional social structures, tightly knit kinship networks, and strong clan-based norms, may in some circumstances become settings in which severe violence, honor-based conflicts, and retaliatory cycles are reproduced and normalized. In these environments, violent conduct is not always experienced or interpreted as a purely individual act; rather, it is often embedded in a broader matrix of collective identity, lineage-based solidarity, symbolic honor, and locally accepted mechanisms of conflict management. At the same time, the official criminal statistics and the internal research reviewed in the article indicate that violent incidents, group conflicts, and honor-related disputes remain a serious concern in areas with stronger tribal structures. This condition creates a dual challenge for criminal justice. On the one hand, formal justice institutions must respond to violence, protect victims, and preserve public order. On the other hand, their responses may become ineffective or even counterproductive when they are detached from the cultural and social realities of tribal life. As a result, criminal policy in these settings cannot rely solely on abstract legal uniformity or punitive severity; it must also confront the culturally embedded nature of violence and the specific mechanisms through which tribal solidarity, honor, and informal authority shape conflict.PurposeThe article’s main purpose is to develop a theoretically grounded and context-sensitive framework for the prevention and control of violent crime in tribal and nomadic settings through the synergy of formal justice and indigenous justice. Rather than treating these two systems as mutually exclusive, the study argues that they should be understood as potentially complementary. Formal justice provides legal authority, procedural safeguards, institutional legitimacy, and the capacity to enforce rights; indigenous justice contributes local knowledge, immediate access to conflict parties, social trust, moral influence, and culturally recognized forms of mediation. The article therefore seeks to determine whether a coordinated criminal policy can mobilize legitimate customary capacities without weakening the rule of law, and whether such a model can better prevent violence, contain retaliatory cycles, and restore social peace in nomadic communities. A further objective is to identify the institutional and policy conditions under which courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers may cooperate with local mediators and tribal elders while still safeguarding victims’ rights and protecting the integrity of criminal justice.MethodsThe study uses a descriptive-analytical methodology and relies on documentary sources, criminological theories, indigenous sociology, and the principles of criminal law. The research combines doctrinal analysis with a critical reading of official crime data and selected domestic studies on tribal violence, restorative justice, mediation, and informal social control. Within this framework, the article draws on perspectives from social prevention, developmental prevention, cultural criminology, and social control theory in order to interpret violent crime not only as a legal violation, but also as a socially and culturally conditioned phenomenon. This methodological design enables the article to examine both the structural features of nomadic communities and the criminal policy responses adopted by the formal justice system, and to assess the extent to which these responses are aligned with the realities of tribal life. The article also evaluates the legal place of mediation, suspension of prosecution, deferred sentencing, alternative sanctions, and other restorative mechanisms as part of the broader architecture of Iranian criminal procedure.FindingsThe findings indicate that criminal justice in tribal settings is often affected by penal populism, cultural misrecognition, and the limitations of a purely repressive criminal policy. The expansion of mass media and social networks has intensified emotional reactions to criminal incidents and has placed pressure on courts to adopt severe, symbolic, and deterrence-heavy responses. In tribal settings, however, such punitive reactions do not necessarily reduce violence; instead, they may strengthen perceptions of injustice, intensify retaliatory sentiment, and undermine the rehabilitative function of punishment. The article also shows that judicial decision-making in nomadic areas is frequently shaped by urban-centric assumptions, while concepts such as honor, vengeance, kinship loyalty, collective dignity, and local mediation practices are central to social meaning in these communities. When these meanings are ignored, judicial decisions may be perceived as externally imposed and culturally disconnected, thereby weakening compliance and encouraging resistance. At the empirical level, the article notes an upward trend in violent incidents and group conflicts in areas with stronger tribal structures, but it also cautions against treating tribal culture as inherently criminogenic, since the same structures may serve as resources for social control, mediation, and conflict containment when properly supported.ConclusionThe article concludes that violent crime in nomadic settings requires neither the abandonment of formal criminal justice nor the romanticization of customary norms. The most effective strategy is an institutional balance that preserves rule-of-law values while mobilizing legitimate local capacities. In practical terms, this means strengthening local participation, utilizing the authority and social influence of tribal elders, deploying specialized non-local law enforcement officers to reduce bias and information leakage, expediting judicial proceedings, and integrating mediation and restorative practices into a legally supervised framework. The article argues that such a model can improve public trust, enhance the enforceability of judicial decisions, reduce retaliatory cycles, and increase the overall legitimacy and effectiveness of criminal justice in tribal communities. More broadly, the study contributes to criminal policy by showing that the prevention of violent crime in culturally specific settings depends on a coordinated relationship between institutional legality and indigenous legitimacy, rather than on punitive uniformity alone.
Criminal law and criminology
Abbas Sheikholeslami; Roghayeh Masteri Farahani
Abstract
Introduction and Problem Statement
The assassination of William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States in 1901, represents one of the most complex intersections of politics, medicine, and law in the history of criminal proceedings. Leon Czolgosz, a Polish-born anarchist, targeted the President ...
Read More
Introduction and Problem Statement
The assassination of William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States in 1901, represents one of the most complex intersections of politics, medicine, and law in the history of criminal proceedings. Leon Czolgosz, a Polish-born anarchist, targeted the President with two gunshots; however, what distinguishes this case from a simple political assassination is the eight-day clinical course that followed the incident. The fundamental problem of this research arises from historical evidence and medical reports indicating that the first bullet did not cause severe injury and the second bullet lodged in a non-vital area. Nevertheless, McKinley's death resulted not from the direct impact of the shots, but from acute sepsis and subsequent internal organ failure. The core legal challenge lies in differentiating the role of Czolgosz's act as the "cause” from the role of the medical practitioners as the "direct agents within the chain of causation leading to death. By re-examining this case through the lenses of the U.S. legal system and the principles of Imami Jurisprudence, this article seeks to determine who bears the ultimate responsibility for the death and how the societal pressures of "Penal Populism" diverted the course of justice in this trial.
Methodology
Adopting a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach, this study examines historical trial documents, contemporary clinical reports, and classical jurisprudential texts. Regarding the U.S. legal framework, the foundations of criminal liability in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are analyzed. In the jurisprudential section, drawing upon the authoritative opinions of scholars such as Sheikh Tusi, Sahib al-Jawahir, and Shahid Thani, the rules governing the "concurrence of cause and direct agent," "physician's liability, and the "causal link" are analyzed to assess the capacity of both legal systems to handle intervening causes.
The findings of this research are categorized into three primary axes
First, within the realm of U.S. Criminal Law, it is observed that the proceedings took place in a highly volatile atmosphere, heavily influenced by the national trauma resulting from the assassination. Czolgosz was sentenced to death in a trial that lasted only two days, occurring just nine days after the President's passing. In this expedited trial, the "theory of causation" was applied in its most simplistic form; the court relied solely on the "But-for" test (asserting that but for the shooting, death would not have occurred), thereby validating the causal link while disregarding the gross medical malpractice—including the failure to utilize available diagnostic tools such as X-rays. In essence, the American legal framework of that era lacked the nuanced tools required to analyze "intervening factors" in high-profile political cases.
Second, within Imami Jurisprudence, the analysis of the case diverges significantly. According to jurisprudential rules, in the concurrence of a cause (the perpetrator) and a direct agent (the physician), the direct agent is generally held liable unless the cause is deemed "stronger". In this case, if it is established that the injuries would not have been fatal under proper care, but the physician's failure to adhere to technical standards and utilize available equipment led to lethal sepsis, the causal link between the perpetrator's act and the death is severed. Through the concept of "Customary Attribution", Imami Fiqh ensures that the liability arising from medical negligence is not ignored simply because the crime was initiated by the perpetrator. From this perspective, if the physician's act is sufficiently impactful within the hierarchy of causation to attribute the death to "deficient treatment," the perpetrator would be held liable only for the initial injury, rather than the homicide.
Third, the issue of Penal Populism is examined. This research demonstrates how public indignation and the perceived necessity to restore damaged political authority led the judiciary to bypass legal rigor. The unconventional speed of the trial and the denial of the defense's right to present claims regarding medical error illustrate the triumph of a "vengeful penal policy" over "procedural justice."
The final results of this research indicate that the McKinley assassination case is a quintessential example of "systematic judicial error" driven by political exigencies. While the U.S. legal system in 1901 adopted a simplistic approach, attributing all responsibility to the perpetrator, Imami Jurisprudence—with its precise tools for analyzing the "concurrence of factors"—allows for an accurate determination of the respective shares of liability between the perpetrator's act and the physician's negligence. This comparative conclusion suggests that had jurisprudential standards been applied, the medical staff would likely have faced civil and criminal liability due to professional negligence. This article emphasizes that in major political cases, the "causal link" must not be sacrificed to political imperatives or the emotional reactions of society.
General and exclusive criminal law
Ali Morad Heidari; Saiedeh Fakhri
Abstract
Problem and Background
Substance use among pregnant women constitutes one of the most complex and multidimensional problems facing contemporary legal and public-health systems, since it simultaneously involves medical, social, economic, and legal dimensions. Substance use disorder is a chronic, disease-like ...
Read More
Problem and Background
Substance use among pregnant women constitutes one of the most complex and multidimensional problems facing contemporary legal and public-health systems, since it simultaneously involves medical, social, economic, and legal dimensions. Substance use disorder is a chronic, disease-like condition rather than a purely voluntary act: dependence develops gradually, interferes with the brain's motivation and reward pathways, and is shaped by individual vulnerability, the type of substance used, and the pattern of use. When it coincides with pregnancy, the risks intensify sharply for both mother and fetus, and the public-health literature consistently shows that harm-reduction and treatment-based approaches achieve better outcomes than purely punitive ones. Nevertheless, pregnant women who use drugs frequently underuse or entirely avoid prenatal care, delay treatment-seeking, and conceal their substance use out of fear of social stigma, legal consequences, loss of child custody, or forced referral to compulsory treatment centers. This avoidance behavior does not protect the fetus; rather, by keeping women outside the healthcare system, it exposes both mother and fetus to greater harm. In the Iranian legal system in particular, the response to this vulnerable group remains dominated by a criminalizing, punitive orientation embedded in the Islamic Penal Code (2013) and the Anti-Narcotics Law, neither of which recognizes pregnancy as an independent differential status warranting specialized protective or treatment-oriented measures. General constitutional provisions (Principles 10 and 21) and non-binding instruments such as Article 142 of the Charter of Women's Rights and Responsibilities offer only abstract commitments without operative enforcement mechanisms. This absence of a differentiated criminal policy leaves a substantial gap between the stated constitutional commitment to protecting mothers and children and the practical realities faced by pregnant women who use drugs within the justice and health systems.
Research Aim
The central aim of this study is to conduct a legal pathology of the situation of pregnant women who use drugs within the Iranian legal system, to identify the structural gaps, internal contradictions, and shortcomings present across criminal, supportive, and health-oriented legislation. More specifically, the research seeks to determine the extent to which the Iranian legal system has succeeded in balancing three simultaneous imperatives: protecting the health of the mother, safeguarding the interests and health of the fetus, and pursuing the state's broader policy of combating drug use. The study further examines whether existing legal capacities, including the Therapeutic Abortion Act, the Law on the Protection of the Family and the Promotion of Population Growth, and Article 1173 of the Civil Code governing child custody, are capable of providing sufficient and appropriately differentiated protection for this particularly vulnerable group of women. The guiding hypothesis is that the dominance of a punitive criminal approach, combined with the absence of a differential criminal policy and treatment-oriented support designed specifically for pregnant women who use drugs, has intensified this group's vulnerability, deepened social stigma, reduced their willingness to seek medical treatment, and ultimately weakened effective protection for both mother and fetus.
Research Method
This is a qualitative, descriptive-analytical, and interdisciplinary study that draws simultaneously on legal, health-related, and sociological perspectives. Data were gathered exclusively through library-based (documentary) research, involving a critical analysis of primary legal sources including the Islamic Penal Code (2013), the Anti-Narcotics Law and its amendments, the Therapeutic Abortion Act, the Law on the Protection of the Family and the Promotion of Population Growth, Article 1173 of the Civil Code, relevant constitutional principles, and the Charter of Women's Rights and Responsibilities read alongside Persian and international academic literature and empirical health-science studies on substance use during pregnancy. The analysis proceeds by first identifying the absence of specialized protective mechanisms for pregnant women who use drugs (examining the lack of a differential criminal policy, the continuing priority given to the punitive approach, and the ambiguity surrounding the relationship between maternal criminal liability and fetal protection), and then examining the practical barriers that prevent these women from accessing treatment (fear of social stigmatization, fear of judicial punishment, and fear of losing child custody).
Findings
The analysis shows that Iranian criminal law does not recognize pregnancy as an independent differential circumstance requiring specialized protective or treatment-based intervention; existing leniency mechanisms, such as deferred sentencing, suspended punishment, and alternatives to imprisonment, are general in nature, discretionary, and not specifically designed for this group. Fetal protection is pursued mainly through punitive instruments, yet this approach is internally self-defeating: when a pregnant woman avoids medical care out of fear of prosecution, stigma, or loss of custody, her own condition fails to improve and the fetus is exposed to greater, not lesser, risk. The study also finds a significant legal ambiguity regarding the relationship between the mother's criminal responsibility and fetal protection, since the mens rea required for criminal liability is difficult to establish when continued substance use stems from physical and psychological dependence rather than intent to harm the fetus. Three practical barriers to treatment-seeking were identified as particularly decisive: social stigma, which operates at the structural, interpersonal, and internalized levels and pushes women toward concealment; fear of judicial punishment, which discourages full disclosure of substance use to healthcare providers and undermines accurate clinical assessment; and fear of losing child custody under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, where the mere possibility of judicial intervention even though custody loss is not automatic and depends on a case-by-case judicial assessment of harm is often sufficient to produce avoidance behavior, including delayed or unsupervised childbirth. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the current punitive framework, rather than achieving its stated protective purpose, systematically discourages the very treatment-seeking behavior on which fetal and maternal health depend.
Conclusion
The study concludes that protecting the fetus and the child during the prenatal period requires, more than intensified criminal intervention, the development of supportive, therapeutic, and preventive mechanisms; a treatment-oriented approach is not in conflict with fetal protection but is, in fact, the more effective route to achieving it. Accordingly, the paper argues for a fundamental reconsideration of Iran's criminal policy toward pregnant women who use drugs, recommending that this group be formally and legally recognized as requiring specialized protection; that judicial authorities be obligated rather than merely permitted to prioritize treatment and rehabilitation in eligible cases; that criminal proceedings be suspended or deferred when a woman voluntarily enters treatment; that the confidentiality of medical information be guaranteed; and that coordinated mechanisms be established between the healthcare system and the criminal justice system, including clearer, treatment-oriented standards to guide custody-related decisions under Article 1173 before any punitive or custody-limiting measure is taken. Implementing these reforms would not only better safeguard the health and rights of both mother and fetus but would also bring Iran's criminal policy in this area into closer alignment with the principles of restorative justice, the right to health, human dignity, and the best interests of the child.
Criminal law and criminology
Shahram Ebrahimi; Hossein Soltanifar
Abstract
Research ProblemContemporary criminal law has gradually shifted from a reactive model centered on completed offences towards preventive strategies designed to manage future risks. While classical criminal law recognizes criminal liability only where a person's intention has materialized in an external ...
Read More
Research ProblemContemporary criminal law has gradually shifted from a reactive model centered on completed offences towards preventive strategies designed to manage future risks. While classical criminal law recognizes criminal liability only where a person's intention has materialized in an external act or omission, contemporary criminal policy increasingly authorizes intervention before the occurrence of harm or on the basis of an individual's assessed likelihood of reoffending. This transformation has given rise to two distinct yet interconnected approaches. The first is anticipatory criminal justice, which criminalizes preparatory or inherently dangerous conduct to prevent the commission of future offences. The second is predictive criminal justice, in which intervention is directed primarily at the individual rather than at a specific criminal act and is justified by assessments of dangerousness and the perceived risk of future offending.The Directive on the Electronic Monitoring of Repeat Theft Offenders reflects this latter approach. Rather than constituting a response to an offence already committed, it introduces post-release electronic monitoring as a mechanism for supervising individuals considered likely to reoffend after serving their custodial sentence. Although such measures pursue legitimate objectives of crime prevention and public security, they also raise significant constitutional and criminal law concerns regarding legality, proportionality, judicial oversight, and the protection of fundamental rights. The central issue addressed in this article is whether the Directive is compatible with the principles governing modern criminal law or whether it represents an unjustified expansion of preventive criminal intervention beyond legally recognized limits.Research ObjectiveThis study examines the legal nature of post-release electronic monitoring imposed on repeat theft offenders and evaluates whether it can legitimately be characterized as a security measure within Iranian criminal law. It further assesses the compatibility of the Directive with the principle of legality, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty, and the theoretical foundations of preventive criminal policy. In addition, the research evaluates the criminological assumptions underlying electronic monitoring, particularly its claimed effectiveness in reducing recidivism and promoting offender rehabilitation.MethodologyThe research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis with criminological evaluation. Relevant constitutional provisions, statutory rules, and higher-ranking legal instruments governing criminal justice and crime prevention are analysed alongside the provisions of the Directive. The study further draws upon theories of preventive criminal law, security measures, predictive justice, and clinical criminology in order to evaluate both the legal legitimacy and the practical effectiveness of electronic post-release monitoring. Particular attention is devoted to the relationship between preventive intervention and the principles of legality, proportionality, necessity, judicial supervision, and respect for individual rights.FindingsThe findings indicate that the Directive represents a significant departure from the traditional foundations of criminal responsibility by extending criminal justice intervention beyond the completion of judicially imposed punishment. Although the Directive refers to broader crime prevention policies and public security objectives, it establishes additional restrictions upon individuals who have already completed their custodial sentences without an explicit statutory basis authorising such measures. Consequently, its legal foundation appears inconsistent with the principle of legality, according to which any restriction upon individual rights must be clearly prescribed by law and imposed through judicial authority.The study further demonstrates that post-release electronic monitoring reflects the logic of predictive criminal justice rather than conventional criminal punishment. Unlike anticipatory criminal law, which focuses upon dangerous conduct, predictive intervention shifts attention towards the perceived dangerousness of the individual and the estimated probability of future offending. Such an approach transforms criminal justice from a system based primarily upon responsibility for past conduct into one increasingly concerned with risk management and future behaviour.From a criminological perspective, the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in reducing recidivism remains uncertain. While electronic surveillance may improve supervisory capacity and facilitate the monitoring of offenders' movements, available criminological evidence provides limited support for the assumption that surveillance alone contributes significantly to behavioural reform or long-term desistance from crime. Without complementary rehabilitative interventions, electronic monitoring functions primarily as a mechanism of social control rather than as an effective instrument of offender reintegration.The analysis also identifies important deficiencies in the Directive concerning the assessment of dangerousness, the selection of individuals’ subject to monitoring, and the procedural safeguards governing implementation. The absence of transparent legal criteria creates the possibility of inconsistent decision-making, disproportionate restrictions, and arbitrary interference with individual freedoms. These deficiencies become particularly problematic where monitoring continues after the offender has fully served the sentence imposed by a competent court.ConclusionThe study concludes that post-release electronic monitoring may constitute a legitimate security measure only where it operates within a clearly defined statutory framework that fully complies with the fundamental principles of criminal law. Preventive objectives cannot justify restrictions upon individual liberty in the absence of explicit legislative authorisation, effective judicial supervision, and adequate procedural safeguards. Accordingly, electronic monitoring should be imposed exclusively by a competent court and only through recognised legal institutions such as supplementary penalties, suspended sentences, conditional release, or other measures expressly authorised by legislation.Furthermore, any legal framework governing post-release monitoring should establish precise criteria concerning eligibility, duration, scope of supervision, assessment of dangerousness, review procedures, and the rights and obligations of monitored individuals. Given that such measures directly interfere with constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, their adoption should occur through formal legislation enacted in accordance with constitutional requirements rather than by administrative directives alone. Only under these conditions can electronic monitoring contribute to crime prevention and the reduction of recidivism while preserving the rule of law, maintaining proportionality, and safeguarding the fundamental guarantees that distinguish modern criminal justice from unrestricted systems of preventive social control.
General and exclusive criminal law
Mohammad Amini; Hasan Poorbafrani
Abstract
Introduction
The rules of criminal law logic in a legal system must be applied both at the time of legislation and at the time of implementation and interpretation. Observing these rules at the time of legislation or interpretation reduces ambiguities and is a factor in preventing deviation from the ...
Read More
Introduction
The rules of criminal law logic in a legal system must be applied both at the time of legislation and at the time of implementation and interpretation. Observing these rules at the time of legislation or interpretation reduces ambiguities and is a factor in preventing deviation from the correct path of interpretation. In the logic of criminal law, firstly, there is coordination and coherence between the components of the legal system; secondly, the rules are based on thought and a type of criminal policy in the pre-legislative stage; thirdly, there is an effort to write clear and unambiguous legislation; and fourthly, the interpretation of the law is based on the principles and rules of interpreting criminal laws in order to prevent the personal preferences of the interpreter. In a short definition, the logic of criminal law can be considered a set of rules governing the way in which criminalization is done and punishment is determined at the legislative stage and the way in which criminal laws are interpreted when the law is applied by the judicial authorities.
Research Objective
The purpose of this research is to express some of the most important legal principles, criminalization rules and rules of criminal law logic, both at the stage of law drafting and at the stage of interpretation, so that by applying these rules, we can witness efficiency, coherence, and increasing citizens' trust in the legal system.
Research Method
The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical, and data collection is through library and documentary sources.
Findings
Among the basic criteria that should be considered in the development of criminal laws and in light of which legislation should be enacted are:
1) Applying the principles of the constitution (constitutional law), which ensures the coherence of the various parts of criminal laws and prevents the expansion of the scope of crime.
2) Clear legislation in light of the principle of legality of crime and punishment, which both guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens and is a factor in preventing the application of personal opinions by judges when interpreting laws.
3) According to the principle of "moderation", the mildest punishment that also meets the intended purpose should be selected from among the various punishments.
The logic of criminal law requires that the criminal policy on which legislation is based be based on constitutional law and "rights-centeredness" so that 1- the freedom of citizens is not restricted for any reason and 2- their security is maintained in a desirable manner. While "security-based" criminal policy in temporary crises considers the only way to respond to irregularities to be maximum criminalization and the provision of the most severe punishments, such a view is contrary to legal logic and is on the path to dehumanizing criminal law.
Conclusion
The logic of criminal law is a systematic set of all its parts, from the beginning of legislation to implementation and interpretation, according to criminalization rules and specific principles and criteria. In this process, if a judge or interpreter wants to interpret the criminal law, he must use the rules that exist in this set. This method preserves the rights and freedoms of individuals and prevents the application of personal opinions and preferences. In this study, some of these principles of interpretation that have received less attention, such as "interpretation of criminal law in light of the principles of the constitution", "the rule of interpreting vague and subjective concepts through objective criteria" and "justice-oriented interpretation of criminal laws", were mentioned. According to the aforementioned principles, every effort is made to ensure that the legal order is in place with a systematic interpretation that is in accordance with the logic of criminal law, and that the judge and interpreter do not see themselves as free, and at the same time, justice is also possible. It is proposed that a comprehensive law be drafted, in which legal principles, considering rights-based criminal policy and attention to restorative justice, regulations regarding the principles and criteria of legislation and the interpretation of criminal law should be formulated, so that the logic of Iranian criminal law can be understood.
)
