A Comparative Study of Crime Cost Assessment in Criminal Law and Shiite Jurisprudence

Evaluating crime costs and trying to reduce those costs have a long history. The first assessments were made in the United States in 1929, and the results showed that criminal policymakers do not pay much attention to the study of this aspect of criminal law. But as we know, the cost-benefit criterion is a good tool for evaluating the results of legislation; A tool that helps the legislature determine the policy that will increase the welfare of society by evaluating the costs and benefits of different criminal policies. In this way, the policymaker can achieve optimal resource allocation where resources are scarce. The criterion of complementarity of criminal law, on the one hand, seeks to internalize the costs of crimes, and on the other hand, in crimes with high economic returns, in order to raise the level of deterrence, it prescribes the exercise of execution guarantee of criminal law as a complementary rule for the legislature. Also, achieving optimal punishments has been proposed as one of the high goals of economic analysis of criminal law and in this regard, they explain what is considered as an optimal punishment from an economic point of view. In this article, with a descriptive-analytical method and with a practical approach, we will analyze the approach of criminal law and Shiite jurisprudence regarding the evaluation of the cost of a criminal phenomenon (crime).