The relationship between the criterion of proof and the level of intimidation in criminal law and its reflection in the legislative and judicial system of Iran

The principle of innocence requires that individuals be presumed innocent on suspicion of guilt and sentenced only if, beyond any doubt, the conscience of the judge is satisfied that the accused has committed a crime. This approach, which is consistent with the punitive function of punishment, makes it more difficult to prove guilt and inadvertently opens the door to escape from conviction and punishment, making it impossible to achieve the goals of intimidation and prevention.

In the present study, which has been done by descriptive method and in a library method, it has been shown that there is a logical relationship between the criterion of proof and the purposes of punishment.

The stricter the evidence for a crime based on this criterion, the less intimidation is achieved, and the simpler the possibility of criminal convictions, the lower the penalty. The principle of innocence or the criterion of conviction, beyond reasonable doubt, has become a slogan, and the legislative and judicial policies of countries have moved towards simplifying the proof of guilt. Increasing criminality in the field of material crimes, merely assuming the elements of the crime, standardizing the result instead of the material element, criminalizing unintentional crimes and predicting organized crime, and assuming the guilt of the proceeds, an.