Criminal law and criminology
Mohammad Faraji
Abstract
Criminality is a complex phenomenon that has been analyzed from various perspectives by criminologists. Traditionally, criminality was perceived as an internal issue, with studies focusing primarily on the factors within a given society that contribute to different types of crime. This approach, while ...
Read More
Criminality is a complex phenomenon that has been analyzed from various perspectives by criminologists. Traditionally, criminality was perceived as an internal issue, with studies focusing primarily on the factors within a given society that contribute to different types of crime. This approach, while natural at the time, was limited by its exclusion of external factors that influence crime. Historically, criminality was understood as a phenomenon occurring within the boundaries of a society, without any significant connection to factors outside of that society. However, this view is no longer acceptable in contemporary criminology. Today, it is widely acknowledged that crime is influenced by both internal and external criminogenic factors. As such, it is essential to distinguish between different criminogenic levels: national, transnational or regional, and international or global.
The first level—national criminology—focuses on the relationship between specific criminogenic factors and the occurrence of crimes within a national society. The second and third levels, transnational/regional criminology and international criminology, analyze the factors that explain why certain crimes occur across borders, affecting multiple countries. Based on this understanding, I conceptualize three levels of criminological analysis: national criminology, transnational/regional criminology, and international criminology. This framework is an expansion of the traditional criminological approach, which typically explains the causes of crime within a national context. The three levels of analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of criminology and open new avenues for research that take into account the interconnected nature of crime in a globalized world.
In my previous article, “Regional Crime: From Etiology to Solution-Finding,” I conceptualized regional crime and its characteristics. I theorized a structure of opportunity and constraint, primarily based on Charles Tittle’s Control Balance Theory, to explain the dynamics of transnational and regional crimes. Methodologically, I defined regional crimes and analyzed them from a criminological perspective, aiming to create a criminological theory of regional crime. This framework would enable a deeper understanding of crime in specific regions, allowing for the application of criminological analysis to any given area. In doing so, I made a deduction based on several key factors, including opportunity, constraints, unbalanced control, criminal fluidity, forum shopping, criminogenic asymmetries, climate or environment of impunity, and the comparative advantage in illegality.
By using these factors in an inductive manner, I was able to theorize the dynamics of regional crime and criminality based on general scientific principles. From there, I applied this theory to different regions around the world to test its applicability. To support this, I used secondary analysis, where I reconsidered isolated criminological findings from various regions, including those in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. This meta-synthesis approach allowed me to determine how my theory could analytically explain regional and transnational criminality across different contexts.
As a result, I developed a theoretical framework for the regional analysis of criminality, based on six key propositions. First, the political, economic, and social conditions of a national unit, whether favorable or unfavorable, can have significant repercussions on neighboring countries. Second, factors such as political corruption, economic weakness, social decay, revolutions, and periods of transition tend to lead to an increase in crime. Third, these vulnerabilities within a given national unit not only result in higher crime rates within that unit but also spill over into neighboring countries. Fourth, the geographical proximity of nations and the existence of related or similar social and economic contexts between countries create more criminal opportunities. This situation often leads to a comparative advantage in illegality, where criminals exploit the differences between countries’ legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and punishments.
Fifth, given the spillover of chaos and crime, which can become transnational or regional, it becomes necessary to adopt transnational or regional criminal policies. By doing so, we can make informed and reasonable predictions about the nature and extent of crime in a given region, as well as the factors that cause crime to spread across borders. Therefore, the conditions within countries in a specific region are correlated with the nature and extent of crime within that region. For instance, the nature and extent of crime in Europe would likely be very different from that in Africa or Latin America due to the differences in the political, economic, and social conditions of these regions. This understanding leads to the conclusion that not only does every national unit need its own criminal policy, but also that countries within a given region must align their criminal policies with each other.
Finally, countries within a region must design a regional criminal policy that addresses the shared challenges of transnational and regional crimes. This approach implies that criminal policies should be tailored to regional conditions rather than adhering to a universal criminal policy that fails to take regional factors into account. Regional criminal policies must be designed with an understanding of local and international dynamics, ensuring they address the complexities of crime across borders.
In summary, understanding crime requires a multi-level approach that considers not only the internal factors within a society but also the external factors that influence criminal behavior across borders. By adopting national, transnational/regional, and international levels of criminological analysis, we can develop more effective and context-specific criminal policies to address the global nature of modern crim
International Criminal
ziba Nilaei Sangari; Aghil Mohammadi
Abstract
Digital evidence refers to information obtained from both “closed” sources, such as USB flash drives, and “open” sources, like social media posts. This information is produced, stored, received, processed, and transmitted by digital devices. Over the past few decades, the rapid ...
Read More
Digital evidence refers to information obtained from both “closed” sources, such as USB flash drives, and “open” sources, like social media posts. This information is produced, stored, received, processed, and transmitted by digital devices. Over the past few decades, the rapid growth of information and communication technologies has enabled the generation, recording, and transmission of vast amounts of digital data. Due to its ability to capture precise timestamps and locations of events, as well as preserve information over long periods, digital evidence plays an unprecedented role in documenting international crimes. As technology advances, the International Criminal Court (ICC) encounters digital evidence more frequently than its predecessors, the temporary tribunals. However, there are significant challenges in admitting digital evidence, including uncertainties regarding the motives and methods of collection, difficulties in verifying authenticity due to risks of manipulation or forgery, the lack of clarity about the source, time, and location of the data, and the potential conflict with the right to a fair trial. This article, based on a descriptive-analytical approach, examines how the ICC navigates these evidentiary materials, the associated challenges, and the court’s approach to admitting digital evidence.MethodologyThis article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the issue. Persian and English sources—such as books, articles, and ICC jurisprudence—were reviewed, with relevant material extracted and analyzed. Additionally, related documents, reports, and information from websites were examined to provide a comprehensive perspective on the subject.FindingsDigital evidence is classified as documentary evidence at the International Criminal Court. Due to the unique characteristics of digital evidence, its admissibility process—based on Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute and the ICC’s jurisprudence—consists of three stages: relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect. First, the Court determines whether the evidence is prima facie relevant to the facts at issue. At the probative value stage, the Court evaluates the reliability of the evidence, considering factors like integrity, metadata, source, chain of custody, and the method of collection. In the third stage, the Court assesses whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value, ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld. These stages are not ranked in terms of importance, as each plays a distinct role in the admissibility analysis. The Court applies a relatively low threshold when determining relevance but assesses the significance of each piece of evidence later. In evaluating probative value, the Court focuses on factors such as reliability and the importance of the evidence for the case. The assessment of prejudicial effect is considered in light of the overall fairness of the proceedings. The Court typically excludes evidence only when its prejudicial effect significantly outweighs its probative value. The findings indicate that challenges in the admissibility of digital evidence at the ICC include uncertainties regarding the motives and methods of collection, difficulties in verifying authenticity due to manipulation risks, the obscurity of data sources, and the potential to undermine the right to a fair trial.NoveltyThis article fills the gap in scholarly attention to the legal framework governing the admissibility of digital evidence under the ICC’s provisions, rules, and jurisprudence. It provides a comprehensive analysis of that framework, emphasizing both technical and legal dimensions of digital evidence. The article identifies key challenges and proposes approaches to ensure a balanced use of digital evidence at the ICC while safeguarding procedural fairness.ConclusionThe ICC’s current flexible approach to the admissibility of digital evidence is beneficial, but it is insufficient to ensure the full and effective utilization of such evidence. The ICC lacks a binding and comprehensive guideline specifically governing the assessment of digital evidence. Sole reliance on past judicial practice is inadequate to address the complexities involved in the examination and admissibility of digital evidence in future proceedings. To balance the admissibility of evidence with the right to a fair trial, the development of an official, detailed framework is essential—one that clearly articulates the technical and legal criteria applicable at each stage of the admissibility process. Additionally, the ICC should institutionalize the use of digital forensics experts and implement regular training for judges to enhance their capacity to evaluate digital evidence. From a fair trial perspective, the ICC must ensure that defendants and their legal representatives have sufficient time and resources to challenge digital evidence effectively. Engaging experts familiar with the technical aspects of digital evidence and improving judicial understanding are vital steps. The ICC must also ensure defendants have access to qualified experts for cross-examination, safeguarding defendants’ fundamental rights. Furthermore, the Court should strengthen cooperation with private entities, such as social media platforms, to preserve digital evidence, ensure access to metadata, and protect user rights.
Criminal law and criminology
Azim Aghababaei Taghanaki; Mohammad Ja`far Habibzadeh; Hossein Javadi Hossein Abadi
Abstract
Psychology, in the context of both crime commission and issues related to punishment, criminal responsibility, and criminal capacity, is deeply connected to criminal law. Criminal law and criminology intersect with psychological studies at various stages of the criminal process—ranging from legislation ...
Read More
Psychology, in the context of both crime commission and issues related to punishment, criminal responsibility, and criminal capacity, is deeply connected to criminal law. Criminal law and criminology intersect with psychological studies at various stages of the criminal process—ranging from legislation to the enforcement of punishment and beyond. In the legislative stage, certain psychological concepts and values have received criminal protection. During adjudication, issues related to proving mens rea (the mental state) arise, while at the enforcement stage, topics such as criminal responsibility, criminal capacity, rehabilitation, and treatment processes come into play. Even after the execution of punishment, discussions on recidivism remain linked to psychological matters. One of the psychological concepts protected under criminal law is aggression. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Iran’s penal policy in addressing verbal aggression and to analyze the psychological, social, and cultural causes influencing it. The primary objective is to identify the challenges of the current penal policy in controlling this crime and to propose solutions based on social psychology and restorative justice. This article seeks to answer why traditional responses, such as imprisonment and flogging, have not only failed to reduce verbal aggression but, in some cases, have even contributed to its increase. Additionally, the study aims to integrate criminal law and psychology to design an effective model for repairing damaged relationships and preventing reoffending. MethodologyThis research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources, Iranian legal documents, and interdisciplinary studies. Data collection is conducted through content analysis of criminal laws related to verbal aggression (such as insult, threats, and defamation) and a systematic review of psychological theories on aggression. A comparative analysis of restorative justice approaches and modern criminal policies is also performed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. The research methodology is based on a qualitative analysis of psychological and social factors influencing crime commission, alongside a critique of the current punitive policies. After examining the concepts of aggression, verbal aggression, and criminal verbal aggression and their psychological causes, the study evaluates the effectiveness of Iran’s penal policy in responding to these crimes. The article addresses the following key questions: Is the existing penal policy effective? What measures can be taken to enhance the effectiveness of Iran’s criminal justice system in addressing these offenses? FindingsAggression, in behavioral psychology, is an intentional act (physical or verbal) aimed at harming another person and causing distress. Some forms of verbal aggression, including insults, threats, and satire, have been criminalized under Iranian law, establishing a direct connection between criminal law and social psychology. This research introduces the concept of "criminal verbal aggression" for these offenses. The findings indicate that Iran’s criminal policy toward verbal aggression primarily relies on traditional punishments such as imprisonment, flogging, and fines. However, these measures lack the necessary effectiveness in reducing crime rates. Iran’s criminal justice responses not only fail to control this crime but may also, in some cases, contribute to its escalation. Among the reasons for this inefficiency are the neglect of the psychological roots of aggression (such as personality, situational, and cultural factors), the disregard for victims' needs, and the failure to implement preventive strategies. Studies show that punitive sanctions neither rehabilitate offenders nor deter crime; instead, they fuel cycles of anger and vengeance, increasing the likelihood of recidivism. Innovation (Value)The novelty of this research lies in integrating criminal law with findings from social psychology and proposing a comprehensive model for reforming current policies. The article suggests establishing "personality files" for offenders of verbal aggression, implementing developmental and social prevention strategies, and incorporating restorative justice principles such as mediation, victim participation, and compensation. These approaches move beyond traditional punitive measures. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the need to align criminal penalties with psychological research by replacing imprisonment, flogging, and fines with alternative sanctions, such as mandatory participation in skill-building programs or psychological treatments. The research critiques the one-dimensional nature of criminal laws and underscores the necessity of redefining verbal aggression within the framework of human interactions and fundamental rights. ConclusionIn social psychology, theories such as drive theory, social learning theory, and the general aggression model explain the causes of aggression. While early psychologists like Sigmund Freud believed that aggression was genetic and hereditary, most contemporary psychologists reject this view, emphasizing that aggression results from various social, economic, cultural, personal, and situational factors.Criminal policy responses to verbal aggression cannot be effective without considering insights from social psychology. Aggression is a behavior with psychological roots, yet Iranian legislators have not sufficiently addressed these psychological factors in drafting and enforcing penalties. Iran’s criminal justice system requires a fundamental transformation in its approach to verbal aggression, shifting from purely punitive measures to rehabilitative and preventive strategies.The study’s primary conclusion is that implementing restorative justice, reducing reliance on imprisonment, and focusing on psychological and social factors—such as personality assessments, ethical training, and economic improvements—can provide effective solutions for reducing verbal aggression. Additionally, the research recommends establishing comprehensive databases, strengthening mediation mechanisms, and training judges in emotional regulation to align criminal policy with societal needs. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the need to revise criminal norms through interdisciplinary research, prioritizing prevention over punishment.
Criminal law and criminology
tahmineh shahpouri
Abstract
Online victimization, as a growing phenomenon, presents unique challenges that differ significantly from traditional forms of victimization. Features such as the anonymity of both perpetrators and victims, the dissolution of geographical boundaries, reduced trust, and heightened vulnerability make cyberspace ...
Read More
Online victimization, as a growing phenomenon, presents unique challenges that differ significantly from traditional forms of victimization. Features such as the anonymity of both perpetrators and victims, the dissolution of geographical boundaries, reduced trust, and heightened vulnerability make cyberspace a distinctive environment for victimization. A key factor influencing this form of victimization is cultural differences, which play a pivotal role in the formation, experience, and recurrence of online victimization. Culture, a complex concept encompassing the beliefs, behaviors, customs, and values of a society, has been recognized since the 1990s, particularly in criminology and cultural criminology, as a significant structural factor.Contemporary criminological approaches view culture and cultural factors as foundational causes of crime and victimization. Cultural criminology, in particular, argues that culture not only shapes criminal behavior but also influences societal reactions to crime and victimization. Modern media and online environments, by influencing social norms and perceptions, have created new contexts for criminal acts and victimization. These new settings present specific challenges for vulnerable groups, particularly children and adolescents, such as the promotion of violence, aggressive behaviors, and the erosion of positive social values.This study adopts an analytical-descriptive approach, utilizing library resources to investigate the theoretical and practical aspects of this issue.Theoretical Frameworks Explaining the Role of Cultural Differences in Online VictimizationRoutine Activity Theory (RAT), proposed by Cohen and Felson, identifies three essential elements for victimization: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and capable guardianship. Cultural differences influence these components in various ways. For instance, some cultures exhibit greater tolerance toward aggressive online behaviors, and the levels of familial and social supervision over internet use can vary. Cultures that encourage the sharing of personal information increase their members’ vulnerability to online victimization.Social Identity Theory emphasizes the role of group membership and cultural identity in how individuals experience victimization. People from diverse cultural backgrounds may experience victimization differently based on their group affiliations. Ethnic and racial minorities, for example, are disproportionately exposed to online harassment, and the social distance between groups can intensify feelings of isolation and vulnerability. Social groups that legitimize violent behavior may contribute to the perpetuation of victimization cycles.The Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model (BGCM) focuses on the impact of learned attitudes, especially regarding anonymity and the diminished relevance of physical power in online spaces. Cultures with strong social norms, such as collectivist societies, tend to have lower rates of online bullying. Conversely, individualistic cultures, which emphasize personal autonomy, exhibit higher rates of online victimization. Positive attitudes toward online harassment, combined with a lack of accountability and weak social norm enforcement, increase individuals’ vulnerability.Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory identifies cultural dimensions such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity, which all affect online interactions and the likelihood of victimization. For example, in high power distance cultures, individuals may be less likely to report victimization, while those in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance may engage less in risky online interactions.Cultural Differences Impacting Online Victimization Across Four DimensionsThe perception of victimization varies across cultures. Cultural norms influence how individuals recognize and react to victimization, as well as how seriously it is perceived. What may be considered a minor offense in one culture could be viewed as a serious crime in another, depending on the societal values and norms.The type of victimization also differs among cultures. Certain cultures may be more vulnerable to specific types of online victimization, such as cyberbullying, identity theft, or online harassment. These patterns are shaped by cultural tendencies toward technology use, communication styles, and the protection of personal information.The experience of victimization and its impact on individuals are mediated by cultural factors. Some cultures may emphasize resilience and coping strategies, while others may foster feelings of shame or helplessness in response to victimization. For example, cultures with strong community support systems may encourage individuals to seek help and recover more quickly, while those without such systems may experience prolonged psychological effects.Recurrence of victimization is influenced by cultural attitudes toward social supervision and support. In cultures with weaker social supervision or less emphasis on community support, individuals are more likely to experience repeated victimization. This lack of support can exacerbate the negative effects of online victimization and contribute to cycles of re-victimization.Practical Implications and RecommendationsThis study highlights the need for culturally sensitive approaches in addressing online victimization. Educational programs and awareness workshops should be tailored to cultural contexts to effectively reduce the occurrence of online victimization. Measures such as enhancing social and familial supervision, promoting positive social norms, and creating secure online platforms are essential. These interventions must take cultural differences into account to be truly effective in mitigating online victimization.Furthermore, a deeper understanding of cultural factors is crucial for designing effective prevention strategies that not only reduce victimization but also enhance the mental health and safety of individuals navigating digital environments. Cultural sensitivity in both policy-making and interventions is key to reducing online harm and supporting the well-being of vulnerable groups, such as children, adolescents, and marginalized communities.
Criminal law and criminology
Zahra Nemati; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
A common form of domestic violence is intimate partner violence. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), in industrialized countries, about 24% of married women have experienced physical or sexual abuse by their husbands at least once. This rate increases to approximately 37% ...
Read More
A common form of domestic violence is intimate partner violence. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), in industrialized countries, about 24% of married women have experienced physical or sexual abuse by their husbands at least once. This rate increases to approximately 37% (about 1 in 3 women) in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran.
However, domestic violence is not explicitly criminalized under Iranian criminal law. As a result, such cases are typically prosecuted under general offences such as assault and battery, threats, insults, and slander. Yet, the penalties for these general offences often prove insufficient and ineffective in addressing domestic violence, due to the unique nature of spousal abuse—including the marital relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the repetitive character of the violence, and the broader impact on third parties such as children.
On the one hand, requiring a wealthy husband to pay diya (compensation) to the victim in cases of physical assault, or a fine to the government in cases of insult or slander, neither alleviates the victim’s suffering nor deters the perpetrator from repeating the abuse. On the other hand, when the husband is insolvent, the victim receives no diya, and in other cases, the frequent judicial tendency to suspend sentences without mandating any corrective programs further undermines the deterrent effect of punishment. Additionally, the criminal justice system in Iran is offender-oriented and does not actively involve the victim in the justice process. Filing a criminal complaint against a husband may also threaten the survival of the marriage, which the wife may not wish to end through divorce.
Given the inefficiencies of the current criminal justice system—both in preventing reoffending and addressing victims’ needs—several critical questions arise: Is it possible to apply restorative justice within Iran’s criminal law framework? If so, what are the potential benefits of restorative justice in such cases? And what factors must be considered to ensure the effectiveness of restorative justice in addressing domestic violence?
This research employs a qualitative approach and a descriptive-analytical method to explore the applicability of restorative justice in domestic violence cases, identify its benefits, and examine the challenges that may arise in its implementation.
Methodolgy
To answer the above questions, in addition to using library resources, two other methods were employed for data collection: Content analysis of 25 criminal and family court cases related to domestic violence, and in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with a diverse group of stakeholders, including 45 victims, 20 judges, 15 attorneys, and 20 family health specialists (psychiatrists, psychologists, couples therapists, counselors, and social workers).
Findings
The research findings indicate that restorative justice can address the needs and expectations of domestic violence victims more effectively than the traditional criminal justice system. Moreover, there are existing legal provisions within Iran’s Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that provide a foundation for applying restorative justice. However, the lack of proper infrastructure and implementation mechanisms—such as insufficient and inappropriate spaces for restorative meetings and the absence of training programs for judges and attorneys—has significantly hindered the practical application of restorative justice in domestic violence cases. Even in the few cases where mediation has been attempted, failure to adhere to the core principles of restorative justice—including voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the neutrality of mediators and facilitators—has resulted in poor outcomes and undermined the legitimacy of the process.
Conclusion
To make restorative justice a viable and effective option in domestic violence cases, it is essential to establish appropriate institutional frameworks and to employ trained, experienced facilitators. In other words, successful implementation of restorative processes in cases of spousal abuse not only requires raising awareness of the benefits of restorative justice but also depends on the development of proper infrastructure and specialized training for facilitators and mediators who can competently manage these sensitive sessions. The central recommendation of this research is to promote the expansion of mediation institutions across cities, train mediators and specialized facilitators for handling domestic violence cases, and to outsource restorative justice functions—whenever possible—to independent mediation institutions rather than relying solely on entities embedded within the criminal justice system, such as public prosecutor’s offices and courts.
Criminal law and criminology
ali movahedi; Ali Najafi Tavana; Mohammad Ashouri; parviz Zokaiyan
Abstract
Today, criminal law is often viewed as the primary solution for preventing and addressing many social disorders and deviant or antisocial behaviors. In Iran, following the Islamic Revolution, there has been a significant increase in the criminalization and punishment of various activities. The extensive ...
Read More
Today, criminal law is often viewed as the primary solution for preventing and addressing many social disorders and deviant or antisocial behaviors. In Iran, following the Islamic Revolution, there has been a significant increase in the criminalization and punishment of various activities. The extensive volume of criminal laws, the nature and scope of criminal responses, and the growing prison population indicate that criminal law has become the default response for legislators in many situations. This approach is often referred to as maximal criminalization or security-oriented criminalization. In contrast to this perspective, the notion of minimal criminalization has gained traction in recent years. According to this view, criminal law should not be excessively broad, nor should it criminalize behaviors that are not essential for achieving the state’s binding goals. If other tools and measures can more effectively achieve these goals, criminalization or punishment should not be necessary. Thus, criminal law should be seen as a last resort, employed only when other measures are inadequate. The principle of minimal criminalization, alongside other fundamental principles such as the principle of innocence, necessity, and transparency, has been proposed as a constitutional principle. However, this principle has received limited attention from legislators, making its position in criminal policy highly significant.
The concept of criminal policy—often associated with social control—is categorized into four models based on the relationship between crime, deviance, state response, and society: crime-state response, crime-social response, deviance-government response, and deviance-social response. These models give rise to various response patterns, including the state pattern, social pattern, integrated pattern, and zero pattern. Within the state pattern, two sub-patterns emerge: liberal society and the security-oriented government, each responding to crime or deviance in distinct ways based on their ideological foundations.
Criminal policy based on the minimal principle advocates for the reduction or abolition of criminal law, replacing it with non-criminal alternatives. This approach favors removing deviant behaviors from the scope of criminal law and avoiding criminal responses for minor offenses. Measures like dejudicialization, decriminalization, and depenalization are central to this perspective. Governments, in turn, can choose between two criminal policies: a minimalist approach to criminalization and punishment, which prioritizes harm reduction, and a maximalist approach based on legal patriarchy, which focuses on strict government control over crime prevention.
The Iranian penal system exemplifies the security-oriented government model, which is characterized by broad state intervention in both individual and social life. In this model, the government has the authority to intervene in various aspects of society, often leading to extensive criminalization across all spheres of human interaction. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iranian legislators have criminalized a wide array of behaviors, contributing to the inflation of criminal laws and increasing state involvement in the private lives of individuals. This view is reinforced by institutions such as the Council for Expediency of the System, the Executive Branch, the Assembly of Experts, and the Guardian Council, which expand the scope of criminalization.
In contrast, the liberal model limits the scope of criminal law to behaviors that directly harm others and applies minimal intervention, avoiding state intrusion into individuals’ private lives. This model does not criminalize minor deviations from social norms, and it prioritizes the protection of personal privacy. Over the past two decades, as the prison population has increased and criminal cases have multiplied, the Iranian criminal justice system has begun to shift toward a more minimalist approach in criminalization and punishment.
The primary outcomes of minimal criminal policy include the use of non-criminal responses before resorting to criminal procedures, as well as decriminalization and depenalization. This principle suggests that punishment should only be applied when other measures have proven ineffective. Additionally, if criminal processes are deemed necessary, a minimal criminal response should be adopted. The use of more severe punishments, whether in terms of their nature or severity, contradicts the principle of minimal criminal law.
This article uses a descriptive-analytical method (library study) to present a criminal policy grounded in the minimal principle and compares it with rival policies to illustrate the evolving perspective on legal punishment and judicial sentencing. It explores the permissible scope of criminal intervention and social control, both criminal and non-criminal, as well as repressive and non-repressive methods, and examines the patterns governing them.
