Journal of Criminal Law Research

Abstract

Abstract Arresting suspects and fighting against the disturbers of public order are
the duties of police which are done by them as representative of people.
However, lawmakers under some circumstance have granted this right to its
original owners, i.e. the citizens. That being so, they are entitled to use force
in order to arrest and hand over accused to the legal authorities. Present
article reviews the history, circumstances and scope of citizens intervention
regarding the arrest of the accused in the legal system of Iran and England
where the origin of the citizen’s arrest theory is. In the common law, citizen's
arrest has the historical basis and now citizens of English, in Indictable
offences with other circumstances, have the right to arrest the accused.
However, in the Iranian legal system and for the first time, the legislator has
granted people the right of taking necessary actions in order to prevent the
offender from escaping and protecting the crime scene based the Article 45
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (2014). This right is conditional due to
the three conditions: just especial crimes, crime shall be evident and the
absence of law enforcers.

Abstract In this article I embark on the contrast between individual and national security in crimes against security. Crimes against the state can be divided into crimes against existence of state and authority of state. In these crimes the first victim is the state itself. Crimes against the security are located in the first category. In these crimes accused rights probably are violated by the state because the state cannot remain neutral. In this regard, firstly I discuss on the principals of criminal law about crimes against security and then its legality. Some scholars believe that public interest is a good pretext to violate the given rights but other scholars firmly assert that no pretext is welcomed. This research shows that the present criminal regulation of Iran followed the first approach which has progressed after the revolution (1979).

Abstract Changes in the nature and form of crime in this century have been caused by the globalization and crimes, as consequence, gained the transnational and international dimensions. The most important of these crimes is terrorism which is often committed in an organized way and criminals take also advantages of modern technology; this made fighting against such crime much more complex. The nuclear terrorism is the most dangerous forms of terrorism, given the extent of the adverse effects on physical and spiritual, especially in the late twentieth century in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Given crime has called more attention due to the possibility of stealing nuclear materials. That being so, measures to prevent such crime shall be taken by national and international authority. The main purpose of this research is to explain the preventive measures with regard to international instruments to guide preventive strategies. Accordingly, the findings suggest that situational prevention and CRM technology, could be considered a one of the effective measures on the reduction and control of nuclear terrorism which reduces the opportunity of the perpetration of aforementioned crime. The implementation of such measures requires the interaction and supervision of all entities nationally and internationally.

Abstract Globalization of crime has faced principles and rules of jurisdiction and
institutions of the criminal proceedings with challenges. The Iranian criminal
law system affected by the globalization of crime has taken actions on a range
of substantive criminal law including the expanded criminalization and
criminal and non-criminal anticipation, response measures. Moreover, in the
sphere of procedural criminal law, it was in the form of some modified
principles and the rules of criminal procedure, predicting some of the
specialized agencies and the rights of defendants and victims. Such changes
led to thr reversal of the presumption of innocence, the exclusion rule over
time, the relativity of a public hearing, a change in the evidence system,
differential (exceptional) of criminal procedure, specialized institutions
dealing, giving excessive authority over the police. Besides the alteration of
the aforementioned principles rules, there are a series of more specific rules in
connection with the global crimes such as mandating the indictment, the
proceedings turn out, certain provisions or the lack of appeal, obligation to
publish the names of those convicted, delivery monitoring etc. In the present
study, the effects of the modified rules and procedures are discussed

Abstract According to social constructionism, crime is a social phenomenon that has
not necessarily independent objective existence outside the human mind and
what counts as crime varies depending on who is defining it. Therefore, in
relations among people, we face with construction of ‘social reality of crime’.
By adopting a moderate view of social constructionism and using social reality
of crime theory, this article discusses on the fact of criminalization process in
Iran. This theory (social reality of crime) believes that formulation and
application of criminal law, development of behavior patterns in relation to
criminal definitions and construction of criminal conception are products of
shareholders’ action that seek to ensure their domination and interests by
affecting the criminal process. The study of proceedings of committees, public
sessions of parliament, official discourse of criminal policy actors and
comments of religious entrepreneurs shows that at least in some areas of
criminalization in Iran, social constructionism theory has dominated
criminalization process and mentality of its actors.