Critical Review of Models of Determining Real Multiplicity Punishment of Ta'zir Crimes in Egyptian, German, British & Iranian Law

The punishment of multiple offenses faces fundamental challenges to justification. By leaving aside the comparison of multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes with the multiplicity of Hudud and the amendments to Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, the rational justification of the punishment of the multiplicity of Ta'zir has become necessary. Therefore, this article by using a descriptive-analytical method, in an attempt to reconcile the institution of crime multiplicity with the philosophy of punishment and in the light of a comparative study of this issue in the three legal systems of Egypt, Germany and the United Kingdom on behalf of three different legal systems, intends to ask the question that ‘’what are the desirable principles and models for determining the punishment of real multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes? The British legal system, in an attempt to strike a balance between the two goals of justice and correction of the offender, has proposed a model of the relative Aggregation of punishments, which is a combination of the model of the real Aggregation and the judicial Aggregation of punishments. German and Egyptian law follow the real aggregation model and have limited this model. The result is that the punishment of multiple crimes in Iranian law due to ambiguity in purpose, has followed all existing models and this has caused in some cases, the severity of the penalty for multiple offenses and sometimes less than other legal systems. This hesitation has been both against apparent and real justice and against the correctional purpose of punishments.