نشریه مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی
سال پنجاهم شماره 1 (بهار و تابستان 1399)

Interpretation of the statute is essential to reason. Therefore the constitution, on the one hand, implicitly grants the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of interpretation of statute and, on the other hand, has transformed the exercise of such jurisdiction into a responsibility through the exercise of the duty to supervise the proper implementation of the statutes and creation the unity of judicial procedure. The interpretation of statute means the process of understanding the intended meaning of the legislature, requiring a coherent system of norms, presumptions, and guides. In interpreting the criminal Acts, in addition to applying the general elements of this system, it is necessary to consider some of the other terms and conditions. The Supreme Court, despite nearly a century of experience in interpreting statutes and control the quality of their understanding in other judicial authorities, has not yet presented a clear and strategic approach to the Interpretation of the statutes and has not adhered to specific norms, presumptions and guides for interpreting criminal Acts. The interpretation of the Supreme Court of Criminal statutes is sometimes principled and instructive and sometimes departs from the rationale of the law and the purpose of the legislature under the influence of practical considerations. This article, by analysing a few examples of the latest procedural unity votes, has shown the Court's unplanned method to exercise this jurisdiction/responsibility.

Deprivation of liberty has long been prevalent in all countries and in legal systems.International documents, however, while making provision to protect the interests of law-abiding society and citizens, have endeavored to enforce the terms and conditions of its proper and lawful implementation.Among these international documents, the European Convention on Human Rights has set out a legal system governing all forms of deprivation of liberty, and the European Court of Human Rights has specified in its judgments the rules and procedures for its application.According to this legal system, the right to liberty is one of the basic and basic human rights that all individuals enjoy, and any deprivation of liberty by individuals as a violation of this fundamental right is against the principle and must be considered as exceptional and necessary. Restrictions, and in these necessary cases, the deprivation of liberty of persons must be in accordance with the provisions of the Convention as well as the domestic law of the Member States.

Public choice theory could be defined as the study of Politics based on economic principles. This theory generalizes the assumptions of market behavior of individual agents such as rationality and self-interest maximization to the behavior of public enforcement agents like criminal justice officials. According to this theory, these authorities would not always behave in line with the interests of the society and might be tempted to pursue their own self-interest. This could lead to the breach of the defendant's fundamental rights, an increase in the number of false convictions and would impose irreparable costs on the criminal justice system. In this paper, we seek to answer this question of why it might be desirable for the criminal procedure to be strongly biased in favor of the defendant. Based on public choice theory, pro- defendant procedure would make it more costly for the self-interested officials to use the criminal process to obtain their own ends. It would also provide a mechanism for preventing the rent-seeking behavior of such officials. Constraining this sort of behaviors is likely to direct the criminal justice system to promote social welfare.

Causation in criminal law, is a relationship that provides a means of connection between the conduct and the harmful result. Today, in many legal systems, the study of this relation (more than the attention to material elements) is based on the criteria for assessing the culpability of behavior. On one hand Sufficient cause view tends to rest on legal concepts of intention and fault as a diagnostic criteria to legal cause with similar foundations in Islamic's jurisprudential texts, is the base of disscution about causation in the islamic criminal law, and on other hand the unbreakable amalgamation of the concept of legal causality with customary standards in most legal systems, including the Iranian legal system, makes it increasingly impossible to separate between the mens rea and causation. In summary, the form of the causal relationship in the Islamic Penal Code can be explained as follows: , the criteria of Sufficient cause view tends to be used only in effect of human causes plural with other natural factors. This theory or any other theory of using standard assumptions of multiple human causes, because of the complexity and multiplicity of mentionable instances, is unusable. Accordingly, finding an effective legal cause to in these assumptions must be borne by customary judgments. Both the criterion of the Sufficient cause view and the customary judgments based on the culpability of behavior, in particular on indirect results, rely on mental elements (mens rea).

Article 4 of severing punishment of perpetrators of Bribery and Embezzlement and Fraud Act (1367.09.15) –that have had an important role in proceeding of criminal cases related to economic corruption and crimes against prosperity of manufacturing- describes a kind of group intervention in those crimes as “making or leadership of a net” punishable by sever punishments. Defects and ambiguities of that Article, however, have arose deferent legal viewpoints and made various judicial proceedings over elements and conditions of that criminal commitment. The present study with a descriptive-analytical method has examined the matter and concluded that arising a unification in judicial proceeding is impossible in a near future due to ambiguities of the Article and defects of related viewpoints; Prevention of crimes against prosperity of manufacturing and economic corruption, therefor, necessitates that the amendment of that Article set in preference of programs of legislator.

Social order is one of the important elements in the evolution and continuity of society, the maintenance of which depends on the unity, empathy and cooperation of all members of society. . At the same time, criminals and violators of the law easily escape prosecution and punishment due to the Apathy of community members in reporting and reporting crimes to the competent authorities. The negative effects and consequences and its increasing prevalence require the intervention and special attention of the legislator. There are various ways to deal with indifference, which in addition to education and culture and creating a suitable environment for dealing with indifference, one of the tools to deal with this phenomenon is to resort to criminal law. To this end, the criminal legislature has criminalized and punished some indifferent instances, such as refusing to help the injured, refusing to report serious crimes, and refusing to prevent them from occurring. Examining Iran's criminal policy, it became clear that although the legislator has paid attention to the issue of social Apathy in sporadic and incomplete articles when drafting criminal laws, but apart from dispersion, this has been accompanied by shortcomings and deficiencies that are necessary to combat this phenomenon. The legislator is devoting a chapter in the criminal law to this issue in order to eliminate all objections, criminalize all important cases of social indifference, including refusing to testify to save an innocent person in that chapter, and determine the appropriate punishment precisely.

According to “the Sustainable Development Doctrine”, it is incumbent on every human generation to use the earth resources in a manner that, while providing its own needs (intragenerational fairness), does not harm the resources needed for future generations (intergenerational fairness). In light of this new doctrine, which has also become a global and favorable model of development in the international community, the concept of development has a different meaning and scope, in that, development in addition to having an economic dimension, also pertains to social and environmental aspects. In this framework, ecocide is considered a serious threat to sustainable development. Ecocide severely degrades the environment and natural resources and shakes the foundations of economic and social security alongside threatening environmental security. The direct consequence of ecocide is the deterioration of economic security of society, which in turn results in or exacerbates severe social crises including poverty, illness, unemployment, homelessness, conflict, illiteracy, delinquency, immigration, displacement, asylum, ethnic clashes, armed conflicts, etc. It is therefore imperative that its criminalization be at the center of the attention of national, regional and international legal systems and that a common criminal policy be adopted to prevent the occurrence of ecocide and end the perpetrators’ wrongdoing.

In Recent years, Juveniles Criminal Justice in many countries is under the influence of rehabilitation policies and attempts have been made to avoid harsh punishments. In Iranian criminal justice, this approach has led to new developments. In this regard, the fundamental question is that how much policymakers committed to the policy of rehabilitation children and juvenile offender? Qualitative content analysis of criminal law and nonparticipator observation (20 sessions) are used to answer that question. Results of research represent a confusion in sentencing process based on which rehabilitation model has not yet become the dominant model in this field. Sentencing based on severity of crime, emphasizing the custodial facilities(institutes) as the major sanction, lack of using evidence based sanctions, insignificance of rehabilitative and therapeutic aspects of sanctions and inadequate attention to community sentences and its shortcomings are some issues that shows weakness of rehabilitation idea. so it is necessary to use evidence based sentences, enrich theoretical approach and provide the implementation context for improving rehabilitative nature of juvenile sentencing

In human rights documentations, due to importance of the convicted and arrested people’s physical health right, standards like as promptness in investigation, its independence as well as participation of complainants in the course of investigation are considered. However, in fact, some criminal systems by creating several systematic challenges limit the access to justice of next of the kin and victims of death in custody. Marginalizing of the families and victims’ lawyers through the secrecy of investigation, lack of independent organizational structures for investing and as a whole creation of obstacles and disruptions in the path of effectiveness investigation, confront the uncovering of the facts in these cases with fundamental challenges. The main question of current article is to what extent the prevalent standards related to criminal investigation are accepted in Iran criminal justice system. The results of this article show us there is a meaningful difference between the cases that the criminal system is the exclusive authority for investigation in compare of the cases there are some additional committees for that.

State crimes with the meaning of imposition of damage to the fundamental human rights by the government organization, were appeared with the establishment of the first governments. Moreover, despite precedence, importance and broadness, the various aspects and, especially, the criminological dimensions of them have not been so far scrutinized by the researchers of the criminal sciences. One of the solutions for overcoming this gap is reanalysis of the existing theories with the objective of enhancing their functional levels. Amongst the various approaches that can be utilized for analyzing the state crimes, the present study employs the theories related to the denial and justification of behavior, including neutralization techniques and Defense mechanisms as two supplementary perspectives thereby to elucidate the state crimes based on a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the present study indicate that the governments avoid accepting their crimes through resorting to a multistage process. It begins with the use of a set of denial methods as outlined in the theory of neutralization techniques (crime, loss, victim and liability), advances towards justification methods (reprimanding of the others and resorting to the superior values) and is completed with the justificatory means stemming from Defense mechanisms. This way, in the first step, the state crime’s perpetration is originally denied by the government. In the second stage, the imposed losses and the victims are overlooked

Judicial sentencing is one of the most important steps in the criminal process.The variety of factors, individuals, institutions and the sentencer’s wide-ranging latitude make it necessary to structure the domain of judicial sentencing. Sentencing guidelines are one of the strategies for structuring this process within the framework of the determinate sentencing model. Sentencing guidelines are the criteria that are applied in order to create rational sentencing procedures, as well as to make the judicial discretion consistent and structured. Depending on the audience, the obligatory force, and the sentencer’s range of latitude, these guidelines are divided into parole, voluntary, and mandatory sentencing guidelines.Furthermore, we can distinguish between grid-based guidelines and non-grid based ones, depending on the adopted sentencing methods. In recent years, as a result of the widespread use of the guidelines in different systems, we are faced with the independent guideline-based sentencing model. Researches point to an increase in consistency, coherence, and predictability in guideline-based sentencing.The sentencing system in the domain of Ta’ziarat conforms with a determinate model.Nevertheless, the sentencing is faced with various challenges due to the application of indeterminate sentencing institutes and the wide-ranging latitude of the judges, and the lack of a legal mechanism and structure-giving framework bring about unpredictability and scattering sentences.This paper will study different sentencing guidelines and, by showing both the necessity of structuring the sentencing process in the domain of Ta’zirat and the legal and structural lacuna in this domain, proposes the application and implementation of some sentencing guidelines with a narrative structure.

According to empirical studies, legislative discourse efforts in the context of formal mechanisms of justice; have not been sufficient to effectively support victims of sexual violence. As such, transcending the justice needs of sexual violence victims beyond the limited capacities of the criminal justice system will make a clear and comprehensible shift in response to sex crimes in most legal systems. The results of this paper, which is qualitative and descriptive-analytical, Using one of the most common means of data collection, namely interviews with 20 judges (Criminal Court of Tehran province) and 15 sexual crimes victims along with a multi-year study of the different branches of the Criminal Court, indicate that Justice from the perspective of victims of sexual violence corresponding to the components of restorative justice as another mechanism of justice and Judges in the current state of the criminal justice system of Iran, apply existing criminal policies on sex crimes with an attitude and restorative lens.