جرم انگاری

Disruption in economic crimes is one of the criminal topics in Iranian criminal law that is subject to ambiguity and various interpretations. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to examine the question: How can Iran's criminal policy toward economic disruption be analyzed with an emphasis on the scapegoat theory? This is a descriptive-analytical article that employs a library-based method to address the aforementioned question. The findings indicate that Iran’s criminal policy is predominantly a security-oriented penal policy, attempting to portray itself as powerful, whereas the true strength of the system and penal policy lies in crime prevention. In reality, the state, by sacrificing a scapegoat, seeks to influence public opinion with the notion that it possesses sufficient authority to confront offenders. The fact of the matter is that in the context of economic disruption, the multiplicity and proliferation of criminal labels—driven by pragmatism—undermine economic development, as they cause confusion and fear of prosecution among investors due to the abundance of legal provisions, leading them to hesitation; whereas adherence to clear and transparent laws fosters trust and encourages investment. Furthermore, the notion of growth and development is meaningless without consideration for judicial security. This can only be achieved when fundamental principles such as the independence of the judiciary, judicial independence, and timely adjudication are taken into account. However, in many instances, populist approaches and practices based on the scapegoat theory lead to the neglect of these principles.

The criminalization of illicit relations and obscene behaviors in cyberspace and social networks has become a common issue in various countries, which is considered a major problem due to the Sharia approach in the Iranian penal system. The present study seeks to analyze the criminalization of illicit relations on social networks with regard to the jurisprudential rule of attribution. What are the weaknesses of the laws related to the criminalization of illicit relations on social networks from the perspective of the jurisprudential rule of attribution? The results have shown that in line with the principle of attribution, Article 14 of the Computer Crimes Law approved in 2009 requires it to consider the principle of "republication and repetition of the crime" in the publication of illicit relations or obscene acts. Also, Note 4 of Article 742 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392 considers nudity as an example of obscene behavior, which is not applicable to obscene behavior and illicit relationships through revealing clothing, which requires amendment and inclusion of a note to include the aforementioned behaviors using revealing clothing. In addition, Article 14 of the Computer Crimes Law should state examples of "interest" in behaviors similar to illicit and obscene acts as examples to avoid interpretability. The present article uses a descriptive-analytical method and library tools.

In response to catastrophic military attacks, international law, while providing for the "international responsibility" of states, has created "international criminal liability" for the military and political leaders. These measures, which are included under the humanitarian law or the law of armed conflicts (domestic and international), are aimed at reducing the pain caused by war by limiting the use of military tools. After the attack of the Israeli military forces in the Gaza Strip, its expansion to other parts of Palestine Territory in 2023-2024, the killing of tens of thousands of civilians and the destruction of countless civilian targets, the question arose that despite the legal mechanisms for prosecuting Israeli international crimes, what Are the obstacles which cannot be prevented from committing these crimes again? This article deals with two categories of domestic and international legal obstacles for the legal prosecution of Israeli crimes from a legal perspective and with an analytical-descriptive method. According to the findings of this article, "Iran's non-membership in the Statute of the International Criminal Court", "lack of criminalization of international crimes in domestic legislation" and "non-recognition of Israel" are three factors that make Iran face problems in legal prosecution. In addition, "the weak international position of the Palestinian state", "Israel's interest in using legal tools to its military interests" (warfare) and "the lack of legal bases necessary to support the resistance" (legal convergence) are three key obstacles to prevent the aforementioned crimes. Therefore, while addressing each of the domestic and international obstacles from a legal point of view, this article has examined solutions.

Ensuring economic order and security in the society is one of the important duties of governments, and legislators are supposed to implement criminal policies against disruptive behaviors in the economic situation. It is very clear that policies in an Islamic society must have jurisprudential support and be in accordance with the culture and beliefs of that society.

The present article is descriptive-analytical and the method of collecting information was done in a bibliographic manner by referring to documents, books and articles.

Ethical Considerations:

 In all stages of writing the article, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.

It seems that there has not been any research worthy of attention in this regard, and it is necessary to criminalize such behaviors, which have clearly been neglected in the legal body of the Iranian criminal system. The findings indicate that the criminalization of such behaviors has the necessary jurisprudential support and the principles and rules of jurisprudence in this field include "respecting property over falsehood", "harmless", "respecting cooperation over wrongdoing", " maintaining economic order and security" and "interestedness".

Inflationary measures should be separated from other economic crimes and recognized as an independent criminal behavior, and the delay will have extensive negative consequences.

The right to healthy food is accepted as one of the fundamental human rights in the legal system of modern countries and the means of protecting this right are reflected in the types of legislative, judicial, executive and preventive criminal policies. The purpose of this article is to examine the question of how Iran's legislative criminal policy is in protecting food safety. The present article is descriptive and analytical and has investigated the mentioned subject by using the library method. The findings showed that although the laws and regulations in Iran's legal system in this area are in accordance with the standards, they are not comprehensive enough and it is suggested to pass a comprehensive law regarding the protection of food health. In Iran's legal system, the lack of a comprehensive law and an obstacle, both criminal and specific legal, health and food safety and its guarantee is one of the necessities that must be taken into account. The result is that criminalization and the use of legislative criminal policy in the field of criminal law should be used case by case and selectively, following the principle of last resort.

In recent years, in particular, the issue of hijab has become one of the most important social issues, and there have been disagreements about it, and some opponents of not wearing the hijab believe in criminalizing and using the guarantee of criminal execution for not wearing the hijab. This article is the percentage of the investigation of the criminalization of hijab with emphasis on the rule of negation of harm and its theoretical and legal challenges. This article is descriptive and analytical and has investigated the mentioned subject by using the library method. From the point of view of the no-harm rule , non-observance of covering can cause irreparable mental and psychological damages and disturb people's comfort. The rule of harmlessness, which has been consistently used by public and private jurists in the case of material damages, can also be used in the case of spiritual damages by analyzing the narration of the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, the criminalization of nakedness faces criminological challenges from the point of view of the no-harm rule . The principles governing sociological criminalization, are not suitable for criminalizing non-observance of covering in a religious society, but the Islamic government can by appealing to the verses and traditions and clinging to the duty-oriented principle of divine decrees and in terms of the principles of moral damages In its shamelessness and inexcusability, limit people's freedoms and initiate criminalization and finally punish those who are guilty of it.

The increasing of the media led to the globalization of cultural and the spread of anti-Islamic –Iranian culture programs by western countries and raised the concerns of the country’s thinkers and politicians. The question is, what discourse was raised against it? How did it play a role in criminalization? and how is its future? Our method in this research is descriptive – analytical which uses library resources with an interdisciplinary approach with a combination of legal and political sociology to analyze the concept, roots, formation factors and efforts of potential actors in four periods for criminalization Has dealt with this discourse. Finding show that criminalization is not the result of the efforts of an actor and the discourse of cultural invasion in different periods has accompanied by other discourses, challenges or adjustments that have a positive or negative effect on criminalization in the cultural field and this situation it repeats. But the framing of discourses and the determination of policies and strategies in the light of interaction and consolation with elites will make it possible to avoid emotional and  and unjustifiable criminalization by passing favorable laws.

The right to a healthy environment, closely tied to fundamental rights such as the right to life, has been widely recognized in various legal systems and international instruments. The importance of safeguarding and protecting the environment is universally acknowledged. Today, environmental protection has become a primary goal for the global community, reflected in the constitutions and legal frameworks of over 110 countries. These laws enshrine the right to a healthy environment or emphasize the necessity of environmental protection. This commitment is not limited to domestic legislative measures; many international instruments have made environmental protection a key priority.Iran has also recognized the significance of environmental protection and has supported this cause through numerous legislative actions. Since the Islamic Revolution, the right to a healthy environment has been enshrined in Article 50 of the Iranian Constitution, with the protection of the environment being regarded as a public duty. To fulfill this responsibility, the Iranian legislature has implemented various measures. However, in some areas, these efforts have adopted a criminal and punitive approach, acknowledging the limitations of administrative and civil enforcement in safeguarding the environment and preventing harmful actions. This raises an important question: while protecting the environment, whether for its intrinsic value or for human benefit, is a worthy and desirable goal, does this alone justify criminal intervention?Criminalization delineates the boundary between prohibited behavior and individual freedoms. Any criminal intervention, including criminalization and sentencing, inherently restricts individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, limiting individual freedom through criminalization requires clear justification. Governments must base their criminalization actions on specific principles and rationale to justify the restriction of citizens' freedoms. This article aims to explore the underlying basis of criminalization in Iran’s environmental laws, specifically in relation to the criminalization of certain environmental behaviors.To address this, the article begins by examining one of the most significant principles of criminalization in legal systems: the principle of harm. John Stuart Mill, in his influential work On Liberty, argues that the only legitimate purpose for exercising power over individuals against their will is to prevent harm to others. Mill asserts that individuals should not be punished for actions that do not harm anyone. This principle of harm forms the cornerstone of the liberal model of criminalization.Mill’s interpretation of harm focuses on violations of rules essential for society's survival, which harm the vital interests of others. However, this definition raises several questions in the context of environmental crimes. For instance, in order to convict someone, must their behavior result in actual damage to the environment, or is it sufficient for the behavior to merely present a risk of harm? Relying exclusively on the principle of harm as a requirement for actual and tangible damage to the environment overlooks behaviors that pose a threat to the environment but have yet to cause direct harm. This limitation weakens the ability to protect the environment effectively.In the postmodern 21st century, often described as a “risky society,” the principle of caution has emerged as an essential component in criminal law, especially in areas that are critical and vulnerable, such as the environment. The principle of caution emphasizes the need for rational and foresighted thinking, aiming to avoid both intentional and unintentional risks. This shift in perspective has prompted changes in the interpretation of harm. In the American legal context, the development of the harm principle in Feinberg’s theory expands its scope, suggesting that harm is not limited to inherently damaging behaviors. Instead, it now encompasses behaviors that present a real or abstract risk of endangerment to the environment.This broader understanding of harm includes both real and abstract endangerment, allowing for the criminalization of actions that may not cause immediate harm but still pose a significant risk to the environment. By incorporating the principle of precaution, criminal law can better address environmental threats before they result in irreversible damage. This shift reflects a more proactive approach to environmental protection, ensuring that harmful behaviors are addressed in advance, rather than waiting for tangible damage to occur.In conclusion, while the principle of harm has traditionally been a guiding rationale for criminalization, its application in environmental law must evolve. The inclusion of the precautionary principle, along with an expanded concept of harm, provides a more effective framework for addressing environmental risks. This approach ensures that criminalization is not restricted to cases of actual harm but also extends to behaviors that present potential threats to environmental integrity, aligning with the global need for proactive and comprehensive environmental protection.

The principle of minimal criminal law is a fundamental concept in criminal justice that emphasizes limiting criminal intervention to essential cases. This principle is rooted in human rights and the preservation of individual freedoms, aiming to reduce the use of punitive measures for human behaviors that can be addressed through non-criminal solutions. Theoretically, it is based on moral, legal, and functional foundations. From a moral perspective, criminal intervention is justified only when necessary to protect public order and collective interests. Legally, this principle ensures the protection of fundamental rights and prevents unjustified exercise of power by governing institutions. In practical terms, the principle has a significant impact on criminal policy and justice systems. Legislators should avoid over-criminalization, focusing solely on acts that are socially harmful and intolerable. In the judicial process, judges must refrain from imposing excessive or unnecessary penalties and prioritize alternative measures such as mediation and non-custodial sanctions whenever possible. Ultimately, the principle of minimal criminal law not only reduces the costs of the justice system but also promotes social order and criminal justice by focusing on rehabilitation and prevention. It serves as an effective guide for advancing toward a more humane and efficient justice system.

Criminalization can be called a process by which the legislator, taking into account the basic norms and values of the society and relying on his accepted theoretical foundations, prohibits the current act or omission and imposes a guarantee of criminal execution for it. Based on this, criminalization is a posteriori thing and based on infrastructure sciences such as the philosophy of law, political philosophy and social sciences. In other words, criminalization is based on the theoretical foundations accepted by the government or political power. According to the concept of criminalization and considering its foundations and principles, it can be said that the process of criminalization is a scientific and logical process that follows its own principles and methods. The existence of a basis for the criminalization of an act is not enough, and the symmetry of the bases and principles of the criminalization of a behavior is what gives the criminal protection a scientific and logical face. In the absence of explicit or implicit criteria for decisions related to criminalization, the scope of criminal behavior has expanded, until the criminal justice system cannot provide any rational justification for criminalization. Since riots and crimes against security have led to disturbances in the country's public order, criminalization and prevention of such crimes seem important. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to criminalize and prevent riots and crimes against security in Iran's criminal system. Therefore, according to the descriptive-analytical research method and using library tools and research in Iran's criminal laws, criminal and non-criminal prevention and theories related to criminology of disturbances and street riots were examined.

Interim order and demand enforcement are two precautionary measures in the Civil Procedure Code that are envisaged to prevent the violation of the rights of the parties to the dispute and facilitate the execution of the future judgment. These two institutions are similar in aspects, including that both are temporarily implemented by submitting a request and issuing an order by the court and have the same litigation costs. However, they also have fundamental differences: an interim order is issued only in urgent cases, while demand enforcement can also be issued without urgency; an interim order may include the seizure of property, the performance of an act, or the prohibition of the performance of an act, while demand enforcement is limited to the seizure of property only.

If, after the enforcement of the demand enforcement or interim order, the court rules in favor of the defendant in the main lawsuit and the plaintiff fails to prove his legitimacy, the defendant will have the right to demand compensation for damages resulting from the precautionary measures from the plaintiff. In such cases, the defendant is responsible for proving the occurrence of damage and its amount. The type of security adopted in a temporary order depends on the court's discretion and may include cash, securities, or other similar items. While in the case of securing a claim, the type of security is specifically and necessarily limited to cash. Another difference between these two institutions is related to the legal deadlines and the manner of filing the main lawsuit in connection with securing a claim and a temporary order. In particular, in the case of securing a claim, the defendant can claim damages from the plaintiff without observing the procedural procedures. This is especially important in cases where the need for immediate securing of the defendant's rights is felt. These differences and specific characteristics of each of the institutions for securing a claim and a temporary order emphasize the importance and special position of these measures in the legal system.

The principle of quality is crucial in legislation. Legalizing an act is insufficient in criminal law; true quality is evident when criminal laws align with societal demands. Updating traditional crime-related principles can significantly contribute to improving criminal law. As a member of the European Union, the Netherlands adheres to human rights regulations, a cornerstone that not only considerably impacts its criminal justice system but also guarantees the integrity of its laws, providing a strong sense of reassurance and confidence. The profound impact of these human rights regulations on the Dutch criminal justice system underscores their importance. This study examines the principles governing crime in the Netherlands and compares them with those in Iran. The Dutch legal system follows a distinct and specific pattern in defining crime. In contrast, the absence of a definition of the principle of quality in Iranian criminal law has raised substantial challenges for the actors in the criminal justice chain, highlighting the urgent need for improvement and change.

Criminalization is one of the important issues in criminal law, which is the arena of confrontation between collective and public interest on the one hand and individual and social rights and freedoms on the other. Considering the impact and consequences of criminalization on individual rights and freedoms and at the same time, public interest, it is necessary to explain and analyze the approach of jurisprudence and the international human rights system
 

This research is descriptive-analytical and compiled from library sources.

Ethical Considerations: 

In writing the article, the originality of the texts, honesty, and trustworthiness have been observed.

Findings: 

In jurisprudence, while paying attention to individual and social rights and freedoms, more attention is paid to the public interest, and individual and social rights and freedoms are explained and analyzed in order to realize the public interest. In fact, the interest includes religion, life, reason, honor, lineage, and property of the people, which can be realized in the shadow of a greater interest called the government.

In criminalization, individual freedoms have preference and priority over rights. In the international human rights system, however, the emphasis is on minimal criminal interventionism and observance of individual and social rights and freedoms. Of course, there are limitations such as public security and health for individual rights and freedoms in criminalization, but these limitations are minimal.

The criminal phenomenon has always disrupted the public order of human societies and endangered the financial, moral, economic, and political security of individuals and states. Societal reactions to this phenomenon are manifested through the development and implementation of criminal policies. These measures sometimes take the form of criminalization or decriminalization and sometimes involve responses and various treatment methods.The development and implementation of criminal policies are carried out by various governmental and non-governmental actors and, like other policies, rely on research outcomes and data from criminological studies on delinquency and criminals. This allows these actors to act with knowledge and competence in various aspects of crime, for planning and legislation. However, after sending a text resulting from scientific research to Parliament, individuals and institutions find their place in the appropriate legislative process, where they introduce their own political, ideological, and legal or professional interpretations of individual rights and freedoms into the bill and ultimately into the text of the law, thus altering the initial nature of the text. This ultimately leads to a certain apathy among non-governmental actors in participating in the drafting of bills

Sexual crimes have been among the crimes against chastity and morals, which have been criminalized by the legislator of the Islamic Penal Code, and according to that, appropriate punishments have been considered for the occurrence of this crime. Sexual crimes are one of the challenges in today's societies that must be examined from different aspects in order to obtain comprehensive and complete results. Victims of sexual crimes are part of vulnerable groups due to their special characteristics, and since committing sexual crimes plays a very important role in the family and society, these victims will endure severe consequences that make them need support in order not to become secondary victims. makes a special Prevention methods by judicial authorities, including bailiffs, are comprehensive and comprehensive. Therefore, in this article, let's examine the characteristics of legislation and the role of judicial procedure in reforming criminal prevention methods in sexual crimes and evaluate the issues related to it.

Criminalization itself is related to limiting human rights and denying and violating them, therefore interfering with people's rights and freedoms and using power to limit them requires justification. However, the attempt to criminalize ecocide is the most important message of this treatise, the definition of the crime of ecocide, the material and spiritual elements, and what is the position of ecocide in the definition of the crime if there is human or cultural damage. Governments and powerful groups and powerful companies are the main cause of environmental destruction and damage to the environment But because the authority to criminalize is in the hands of the governments and the relevant laws are established and approved by the governments, and also because of the influence and connections between the groups of power and wealth and especially the multinational companies with the governments. Actually, the possibility of criminology in the field of environmental damage is very limited. In an analytical and descriptive way, we will deal with the process of drafting and criminalizing and approving ecocide in France and Belgium. We will also examine the responsibility of companies and governments and their role in the criminalization of ecocide. And we'll be watching to see if the new legal and ethical restrictions help slow the progress of Earth's catastrophes ahead. And also with the criminalization of ecocide, which losses are prevented or which values are passed?

The role of the criminal justice system through legislative and judicial institutions in guaranteeing private property as a goal and a means to achieve development is undeniable. The main subject of this article is to examine the functioning of Iran's criminal justice system regarding digital currencies and the legalization of ownership resulting from it, emphasizing the crime of disrupting the country's monetary or currency system. The findings of this qualitative research, using a case study of one of the most important specialized complex cases for dealing with economic crimes, show that in addition to the criticisms of Iran's legal and judicial criminal policy in the field of cryptocurrencies, the inconsistency of these Together, has created the idea of a kind of neutralization of legislative criminal policy in the output of judicial criminal policy. Therefore, along with the regulation and democratization of digital ownership to open new ways of production and value exchange in the digital economy, it is suggested that the criminal policy as the legislator determines and approves its outlines and tools. be accepted and implemented in judicial courts.

Iran's criminal policy, due to the characteristics of the authoritarian model, is facing challenges due to security, social, cultural, etc. This article tries to identify and analyze the challenges of criminal policy in the legislative field from a critical point of view. The current article is descriptive and analytical and has investigated the mentioned subject by using the library method. The findings indicate that the principle of the political term (legal patriarchy), the principle of moralism, the principle of perfectionism and the principle of harm are among the most important principles governing security-oriented legal criminal policy. The principle of balance of evidence, the principle of prevention of damages. The principle of acceptance is one of the most important criteria for criminalization in security-oriented criminal policy. Security-oriented criminal policy is different in various models of liberal democratic, authoritarian and inclusive government. The security-oriented criminal policy faces challenges related to the determination of competencies and challenges related to the determination of competencies. The security-oriented criminal policy aims to eliminate or limit institutions such as reduction of punishment, suspension of sentencing, conditional release, and suspension and postponement of prosecution, with criminal measures in the field of the government's response to deviations, intensifying the guarantee of executions and means of responding to the criminal phenomenon, extreme criminalization. And at the most, and punishing criminals, which will be the indirect result of applying such thinking in the field of criminal policy, violating the achievements of the human rights system.