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
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.
Criminal Sociology
Sina mahdavi damghani; Reza Arab Chadghani
Abstract
Introduction: Social norms, as unwritten rules that guide individual and collective behavior, are fundamental to the preservation of social order and the reduction of deviant acts. Adherence to these norms fosters constructive interactions and supports social stability. Conversely, deviation from these ...
Read More
Introduction: Social norms, as unwritten rules that guide individual and collective behavior, are fundamental to the preservation of social order and the reduction of deviant acts. Adherence to these norms fosters constructive interactions and supports social stability. Conversely, deviation from these norms can give rise to misconduct and criminal behavior, leading to public disorder and negative consequences. In the military context, soldiers—who embody broader societal values—hold a particularly sensitive and critical position. Their commitment to normative behavior not only affects their own performance but also directly influences the cohesion and effectiveness of military units.
Mandatory military service, often experienced during a formative stage in an individual's life, plays a significant role in shaping personal and social development. However, exposure to the pressures and constraints of the military environment can, if not adequately managed, result in psychological stress, behavioral disorders, and violations of accepted norms. These outcomes can degrade performance, weaken group unity, and damage the reputation of military institutions. This study seeks to explore how external organizational factors contribute to norm violations and deviant behavior among recruits undergoing basic military training. Particular attention is given to the variables of age, educational attainment, economic status, familial attachment, and peer group influence—factors that are believed to significantly affect behavior within the military setting.
Research Objectives: The central aim of the study is to assess the impact of these external factors on soldiers’ tendency to deviate from normative expectations and engage in behaviors that may be classified as criminal. The research specifically investigates the extent to which these variables influence normative adherence, with the objective of equipping military managers and policymakers with evidence-based strategies to prevent deviant behavior and support soldiers' mental health and social integration.
Methodology: Using a descriptive-survey approach, this research was conducted among 541 military recruits enrolled in basic training programs across camps affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. Data were gathered through structured questionnaires, which were validated by experts and shown to be reliable via Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The data were analyzed using Smart PLS software. Normative behavior, the dependent variable, was measured using a multi-choice scale, where higher scores indicated a higher level of deviant conduct.
Findings: The findings of the study demonstrate that all of the examined external organizational factors exert a statistically significant influence on soldiers’ normative behavior. Age was found to have an inverse relationship with deviance, indicating that older soldiers are less likely to engage in norm-violating behavior. This result corresponds with theoretical frameworks proposed by Sutherland and Hirschi, which suggest that maturity and improved self-regulation reduce the likelihood of deviance. Education also showed a strong inverse relationship, with higher educational levels associated with lower instances of deviant conduct, thus underscoring the role of cognitive development and academic engagement in fostering conformity. Economic status emerged as another critical variable, as soldiers experiencing financial hardship exhibited higher levels of deviance, a finding supported by Merton’s strain theory and Hagan’s analysis of economic instability. Similarly, strong familial attachment was associated with a lower likelihood of deviance. Soldiers who maintained close family ties were more likely to comply with social norms, a result that aligns with Hirschi’s social bond theory. Among all variables studied, peer group influence was identified as the most direct and significant factor in shaping deviant behavior. Recruits exposed to delinquent peer groups were more likely to adopt similar behaviors, whereas association with norm-abiding peers had a stabilizing effect. This finding supports Sutherland’s differential association theory, which emphasizes the impact of peer interactions on behavioral outcomes.
Conclusion: In conclusion, this study reveals that external organizational factors, particularly peer group dynamics, play a decisive role in shaping soldiers' behavioral outcomes during military training. Recognizing the influence of these variables provides valuable insights into the causes of deviance and offers a foundation for intervention. To address these issues, several recommendations can be proposed. Establishing accessible and confidential counseling services with trained mental health professionals can offer recruits critical psychological support. Furthermore, investing in the training of military commanders in areas such as communication, empathy, and conflict resolution can foster a more supportive and less stressful environment. Organizing interactive and social programs—including sports, group workshops, and structured peer engagement—can help strengthen group cohesion and reduce the likelihood of deviant behaviors. In addition, improving the economic conditions of recruits through increased pay and financial incentives can alleviate financial stress and contribute to behavioral stability. Implementing these measures can foster a healthier, more cohesive, and more disciplined military force, thereby enhancing the capacity of military institutions to fulfill their central role in maintaining national security.
Criminal law and criminology
mohammad hassani; Hassan Shahmalekpour; Abbas Salmanpour; Esmail Naseri
Abstract
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and debilitating mental health condition triggered by exposure to highly traumatic or life-threatening events such as war, sexual assault, physical abuse, or natural disasters. It is characterized by symptoms including intrusive memories or flashbacks, ...
Read More
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and debilitating mental health condition triggered by exposure to highly traumatic or life-threatening events such as war, sexual assault, physical abuse, or natural disasters. It is characterized by symptoms including intrusive memories or flashbacks, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, emotional numbing, heightened arousal, irritability, and significant disturbances in sleep. Beyond these symptoms, PTSD often leads to maladaptive behaviors such as substance abuse, aggression, and in some cases, suicidal tendencies. Given its pervasive impact, PTSD is recognized not only as a psychological disorder but also as a significant factor influencing social behavior and criminal conduct. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the role of PTSD as a criminal defense within the judicial frameworks of Iran and the United States. This is particularly important given the high prevalence of PTSD among trauma-affected populations, such as Iranian veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, where prevalence rates range between 15% and 39%. Understanding how PTSD influences criminal behavior and how judicial systems respond to this condition is crucial for ensuring justice and appropriate legal treatment for affected individuals.
Nature and Characteristics of PTSD
PTSD develops after direct exposure to or witnessing traumatic events. It is especially prevalent among war veterans—such as those who served in Vietnam, Iraq, or the Iran-Iraq War—survivors of interpersonal violence, and victims of natural disasters. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the disorder’s core symptoms include re-experiencing trauma through vivid flashbacks or nightmares, deliberate avoidance of trauma reminders, emotional detachment or numbing, and persistent hyperarousal manifesting as irritability, anger outbursts, or sleep difficulties. These symptoms can significantly disrupt daily functioning, often leading to impulsive or violent behaviors, which are further aggravated by concurrent substance abuse. Empirical research shows that PTSD profoundly affects social relationships, family dynamics, and occupational performance, contributing to increased rates of divorce, parenting challenges, and co-occurring depression. The chronic and progressive nature of PTSD means that without appropriate treatment, symptoms often worsen, escalating risks of self-harm, aggression, and other adverse outcomes, underscoring the importance of its consideration in legal contexts.
PTSD and Criminal Behavior
The relationship between PTSD and criminal behavior is complex and operates through multiple pathways. First, individual symptoms such as emotional instability, impulsivity, and irritability can directly trigger aggressive or violent acts. For example, individuals suffering from PTSD may respond impulsively to perceived threats or stressors, occasionally resulting in criminal conduct. Additionally, attempts to self-medicate traumatic memories through substance abuse can exacerbate these tendencies. Second, environmental factors linked to traumatic backgrounds—such as combat exposure, histories of sexual abuse, or residence in high-crime communities—can further destabilize behavior and increase the risk of criminal activity. Studies indicate that nearly 46% of veterans with PTSD engaged in violent acts within a year, with 37% repeating such behaviors. Women exposed to violence, especially those with PTSD, also display higher rates of criminal involvement, highlighting the intersection of trauma and criminality.
PTSD in the U.S. Judicial System
The U.S. judicial system acknowledges PTSD as a factor relevant to criminal responsibility in various ways. One significant application is through the insanity defense, specifically under the M’Naghten Rule, which allows for acquittal if the defendant was unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to mental illness. Notable cases such as State v. Cocuzza, involving a Vietnam veteran, and Commonwealth v. Tracy have seen successful use of PTSD as a basis for insanity acquittals. Conversely, cases like United States v. Duggan and United States v. Whitehead demonstrate that insufficient clinical evidence can lead to rejection of such defenses.
The automatism defense, which argues that the defendant acted unconsciously due to PTSD-related dissociation or other symptoms, has also been accepted in appellate courts, as seen in People v. Lisnow and State v. Fields. Additionally, PTSD-related syndromes such as battered woman syndrome have been successfully invoked in self-defense claims, especially where the defendant faced imminent danger, as in State v. Kelly and Rogers v. State.
Even when PTSD does not absolve criminal responsibility, it often serves as a mitigating factor reducing sentencing severity. For instance, in In re Nunez, a life sentence was overturned due to failure to consider PTSD, while in United States v. Cope, full criminal responsibility was maintained despite the presence of PTSD, illustrating variable judicial discretion.
PTSD in the Iranian Judicial System
Iran’s judicial system currently exhibits a more limited and rigid approach to PTSD in criminal law. The Islamic Penal Code (2013), particularly Article 149, allows exemption from criminal responsibility solely in cases where the defendant completely lacks willpower or discernment due to mental illness, effectively limiting considerations to cases of legal insanity. This binary distinction ignores the complexities of partial impairments such as PTSD, thus excluding many affected individuals from appropriate legal recognition.
Article 153 provides exemptions for involuntary acts performed during sleep or unconscious states, which could apply to some PTSD-related automatism, but this remains largely unexplored. While self-defense is acknowledged under Article 156, the strict necessity and proportionality criteria restrict its application, especially regarding psychological conditions like battered woman syndrome, which is more flexibly treated in common law jurisdictions.
Furthermore, Iran lacks formal recognition of diminished responsibility for sub-insanity disorders like PTSD. Although Articles 37 and 38 allow judges discretionary power to reduce sentences, these provisions are vague and rarely emphasize mental disorders that do not meet full insanity criteria. Alternative legal mechanisms, such as alternative punishments (Article 64), deferred sentencing (Article 40), suspension of prosecution (Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and exemption from punishment (Article 39), could theoretically support PTSD defendants, but their discretionary use and absence of clear guidelines limit their practical effectiveness.
Conclusion
Comparing the two systems, the U.S. judiciary demonstrates greater flexibility and clinical integration in addressing PTSD as a criminal defense through insanity, automatism, self-defense, and mitigating sentencing factors. Conversely, the Iranian system’s strict application of insanity standards and lack of diminished responsibility frameworks result in limited acknowledgment of PTSD’s impact on criminal behavior, with no documented cases explicitly involving PTSD defenses.
To promote justice and therapeutic outcomes for PTSD-affected offenders in Iran, judicial reforms are recommended. These include formal recognition of diminished criminal responsibility for sub-insanity disorders, mandatory sentencing reductions for specific mental health conditions, expansion of alternative sentencing options, and revision of existing penal provisions to emphasize defendants’ psychological states. Such changes would align Iranian criminal law more closely with contemporary understandings of PTSD’s psychological complexities and foster a more equitable, humane judicial response.
