فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری
پیاپی 38 (بهار 1401)

Explaining new phenomena and events in various fields using macro and interdisciplinary theories and strategies is on of the practical tools for better understanding of these phenomena in order to adopt appropriate management-executive approaches to them. Therefore, understanding the concept of "Sovernment Crime" as a systematic violation of citizens' rights by the government, under "Game Theory" as one of the strategic theories to explain phenomena and events in the fields of social sciences and international relations, is a matter that is both from the perspective of understanding and promotion. The so-called government crime literature is worthy of attention in terms of attention to the objective and practical aspects of identifying and responding to government crimes. Therefore, in this article, considering the state and citizens as two main actors in different fields, and using the principles and elements of game theory, it has been argued that the actors participating in a game have rationality and by calculating their possible profit and loss participate in the game process and seek maximum profit and minimum loss. These actors reach equilibrium at a point known as the saddle point - in which each actor has gained a certain amount of profit and loss. This point is the point where it is no longer possible to receive more profit and less loss for any of the parties, and if the game continues, they will suffer a decrease in profit and an increase in loss. Finally, it has been concluded that the states, with tools such as bringing other actors into their playing field with citizens, using rents and information tools, changing the rules and regulations governing the game, cause the balance to be disturbed and the saddle point to be shifted to turned towards themselves and thus cause systematic violation of citizens' rights.

Victimology studies based on the facts of social life indicate the victim precipitated in many of criminal homicide. The punishment of the offender should be determined according to the circumstances of the crime and in proportion to his responsibility. Whereas in the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, victim provocation who sometimes is more guilty than the offender, is allocated to Ta'zir punishments only as one of the mitigating factors. This article in descriptive and analytical study, aims to research the role of effective provocation of the victim in abolition of Qisas, considering the results of victimology knowledge and the necessity of the dynamics of criminal jurisprudence. The results of the analysis of some traditions on the subject of Qisas, such as Sahih Suleiman bin Khaled and Sahih Halabi with a new perspective, indicate the abolition of Qisas due to effective provocation of the victim. According to the findings of this study, it is necessary to add a note to the general conditions of Qisas in Article 301 of the Penal Code that the victim will not have the right of Qisas if he has started the aggression and the provocation.

plurality of crime is a special situation in which a person has committed several crimes before a final conviction, and Lawyers have expressed different views on the rules of plurality of crime. the regulation of criminal institutions cannot be independent of the goals of the criminal response. The present article is a descriptive-analytical study using documentary sources. This study answers the question of how the plurality of crime is affected by the goals of ta'zir and creates a new rule? Since the main goal in ta'zir is correction, and in addition to correction, compensation for the damage is also considered. Criminal talent should also be considered in the process of correction.it is also necessary to pay attention to criminal motives. Therefore, in committing crimes, if the motives are similar, they will interfere and will be limited to just one ta'zir. And if the motives are dissimilar, any motive independent of the other motive is the subject of ta'zir, and the plurality of motives will cause the plurality of ta'zir reactions. Unless the goal is achieved by applying an appropriate ta'zir,in which case the causes will interfere.In cases where the purpose of ta'zir is compensation, the plurality of victims will lead to the plurality of ta'zir,even if the motive is the same.in order to provide the Victims' interests, a reaction must be adopted in the light of which the perpetrator's correction is also achieved.

The principle of the prohibition of double punishment is one of the accepted principles of criminal law, according to which every crime should only be punished once. This rule is accepted by Islam and it is imperative to abide. In the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution, this rule has not been accepted if the original punishment was not religious; however, the Islamic Penal Code, adopted in 1392, only accepts this rule in non-legal sanctions. The result of this approach is that the offender, in addition to the primary punishment, must tolerate the religious punishment that is not compatible with the rational principles and the spirit that governs the Islamic law. In this research, by examining the bases of Guardian Council's views on this issue, the fatawa of contemporary imitation and analysis of relevant researches, the Guardian Council's approach to non-acceptance of this rule has been criticized in the sanctity of Shari'ah and, moreover, Adoption of this rule in all punishments has been based on the principle of non-refoulement to the judiciary. Since the famous jurisprudents believe that if the presence of a judge in a lack of authority is in vain and without authority, the reference to him is permissible and his vote is valid, and since in the criminal matters the presence of the offender in the court of law and his punishment are usually It is beyond his discretion that he should consider the verdict of the judge concerned and avoid double punishment for the offender.

Exclusionary rule has been accepted in different legal systems and has not been clearly accepted in Iranian legal system. this rule can be justified both on the basis of individualism thinking and in the idea of collectivism. In the first approach, the goal is to further protect the accused and guarantee his human and individual rights, in the second approach, the goal is to improve the quality of the trial and the performance of the judicial system. Studies show that the dominant approach in Iranian law, as well as in many other individualistic legal systems, has been the reason for the exclusionary rule. the changes that have taken place in the legal system have caused the ideological foundations of this rule to change and society to thinking be in the center of attention rather than the individual, which in turn raises the status of the judiciary and, in other words, increases legitimacy. This study was conducted with a comparative study in the USA and Iranian legal system and the result is the confirmation of the rise of both legal systems to collectivist thinking as the basis for identifying exclusionary rule and attention to social feedback on the performance of the judiciary.

The response to the complicated issue of the scope of self-ownership has shed light on the issues like unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and organ transplant in the convicts of execution. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudential doctrines, there are a myriad of disagreements over the subject of whether men are the owners of their organs or not. The resulted approach is that Islamic viewpoint, contrary to western ideologies which are humanistic, does not completely accept self-ownership. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudence, freedom of men and their dominance on their body is an axiom but cannot expose them to unreasonable harm. From the standpoint of western legal theory, the proponents of self-ownership believe men are the owners of their organs and thus maintain that this law faces some limitations in the framework of natural law. Moreover, they hold that criminalization of unreasonable harm to self is not to be justified. In contrast, those who believe in the moral patriarchal theory object to self-ownership and justify the criminalization of such conducts. The present article analyzes the afore-mentioned standpoints through a descriptive method and then compares unreasonable cosmetic surgery in the criminal law of Iran with those of England andو