Punishment mitigation in the law of campaign against trafficking goods and currency passed in 1392

The policy to determine and harmonize punishment type with the crime based on the authority of the judge is rooted in this view that the law maker cannot decide on the basis of his/her preconceptions. Thus, to harmonize the punishment type with the crime, the situation, and the character of the defendant lies within the authority of the judge. Therefore, the judges are allowed not only to issue verdicts, including maximal and minimal punishment, but they can also transgress the legal limits with reference to mitigating qualities. Nevertheless, the determination of punishment in the special criminal law, outside the Islamic criminal law including the act 71 with respect to the camping against trafficking goods and currency with the ban on mitigation and suspension takes a different route. The direction of criminal law making policy is based on this belief that by intimidating the potential wrongdoers and increasing the loss stemmed from the crime compared to the profit, two purposes can be achieved: a) curbing the trafficking of goods and currency, b) provision of budget by issuing monetary penalty. However, the criminal, judicial law policy based on personalization of responses which resorts to impunity and suspension of sentences takes a different direction within the domain of campaign against trafficking goods and currency.