Pathology of Judicial Criminal Policy regarding Stolen Property

The rules, including some criminal policies are applied by judicial authorities. Judges bring the written laws among people and make them objective and tangible. But the function of the judiciary can completely further it to some parts of legislature objective and can lead to adoption and implementation of unexpected criminal policy. Because in addition to legislative and executive factors, there are other effective judiciary factors that must be taken into account in order to combat crimes. Scientific assessment of controlling a crime requires cognizance of its gaps and shortcomings on the grounds of legislative, judicial and executive criminal policy. One of the challenges in suppression of theft in the dimension of law and jurisdiction, is the recognition of things which are capable of being the object of this crime. Article 267 of the Islamic penal code, has considered “property” as the object of theft. Property is a relative concept and refers to any object such that there is a rational incentive to pay a valuable item or good in exchange for it. Legislative policy in financial crimes, especially theft is confined to protection of legitimate financial rights and benefits of people. But in practice, it has been seen that judges have followed a different approach from legislative criminal policy using judiciary interpretation.