فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری
پیاپی 4 (پاییز 1392)

Acid Throwing attack is a terrible violent crime against the person which is not properly analyzed in criminal law, nor in criminology. Global statistics, if they are not of concern to international community, affirm the necessity of finding a solution for this problem. One of the most important aspects to explore the phenomenon is the issue of acid violence victims which requires a special consideration in theory and practice. Meanwhile, Ameneh Bahrami Navaa Case has significant points from the victimological perspective. The case shows that the Iranian society, as well as its legal system, face serious defects to protect victims of acid violence. The necessity of remedy of moral damage, providing and imposing proportionate penalties, prevention of acid throwing attacks and control of its increasing rate all are of issues which have a need of consideration.

Since the International Criminal Court has been established by the Statute which was ratified at Rome Conference in 1998, a new horizon was opened to the prosecution and trial of the international crimes offenders. One of the goals to establish the ICC is fighting against the impunity; it raises some questions in relation to developments in contemporary legal thoughts such as restorative justice. This essay seeks to explain the concept of restorative justice and its context in the trials of international crimes. It also seeks to explain the Statute of ICC from the view of its proceedings and decisions by inspiration of “purist model” and “maximalist model “approaches about the restorative justice. The aim is to find the characters defined for restorative justice in ICC, and explain the contexts of the restorative justice.

Nowadays, the participation of non-governmental organizations are considered as a one of a good elements of the governance from the economic, social and cultural points of view. The mentioned participation in legal system can play a prominent role in the efficiency and public confidence. The new criminal procedure law aiming at operationalizing the above objectives, has officially recognized the Pursuing the Public Action in a special category of crimes by these organizations. Although the position of these organizations has been cited in the text of law as a “crime reporter”, extensive authorities such as presenting an evidence and protesting to an award which was made have been granted to them. In fact, the law -due to discretionary spending in this arearefused to name them as a “plaintiff ". Probably, due to the predicted authority, the law considered an "intermediate" role between plaintiff and crime reporter. In some cases in which a crime has a specific victim, the consent of victim or his/her legal guardian is necessary and required. The matter which has been neglected in the law is the mechanism of supervision for the activities of these organizations. I hope it becomes possible to clarify the failures of this law by its implementation and then take the better step under the light of the experiences.

The legislator criminalized the invitation to suicide by enacting the cybercrimes Act 1388. According to this Act, if the invitation to suicide is considered as a crime, it shall be exclusively committed via computer systems, communication systems and data carriers. The way of committing this crime is not important, not restricted and it does not matter whether suicide is committed in the way that caller prefers or not. The invitation to suicide is not bounded to consequence although the specific intent including special intent of invitation to suicide, is essential for committing the crime. If suicide pact includes invitation to suicide by computer and communication systems and data carriers, it will be considered as a crime. Invitation under the condition is also considered as an invitation to suicide and it should also be noted that disregarding the invitation by caller does not invalidate the crime.

Police officers sometimes resorts to the sting operations to detect a crime. American criminal law allows to use this sort of operation. In Iranian criminal law, Islamic and legalprinciple forbid such an operation.However, under the light of Tazahom principle, in serious crimes like diffusion of drug according to the rule of The Most Important which is provided in penal code (Article 158, section B), police officersresort sting operation. These sort of measures, sometimes lead to commit a crime by a citizen instead of arresting a professional criminal and entrapment comes to existence. To achieve the entrapment, incitement must be done by the police officers and it must be done in the way that might be able to influence any common citizens.

Public disclosure of conviction is accounted as a shaming sanction which pursues old promulgating sanction. Regarding to the fact that recognition of the philosophy of punishments and comparing the sanctions with them have a significant role in increasing the efficiency of the mentioned measures, public disclosure of conviction has been analyzed from the criminal philosophy perspective. In general, the philosophy of criminal sanction can be divided into consequentialist and non-consequentialist philosophies. Consequentialist philosophy with the element of deep insight into the issue usually intends to acquire some utilities as a result of punishments while non-consequentialist philosophy usually wants to put the blame on the guilty. As the background of public disclosure of conviction is an old promulgating punishment, and has merely been modernized as a shaming method, this criminal sanction conforms with non-consequentialist philosophy more than consequentialist philosophy and would not rejoice in securing consequentialist philosophy. The above- mentioned fact can be regarded as an encouragement for the Iranian legislator to abandon or at least limit this sanction.

Various economic systems caused different social reaction toward the actions which disturb policy and economic activities - according to the different times and places. The multiplicity of economic and social interactions, makes it difficult to define the economic crime. On the other side, it causes providing the definition, restricting the true sense of the word and consequently limiting the legislature's reaction and difficulty in achieving prevention goals. Therefore, explaining the criteria can be useful instead of defining. This essay seeks to view the criminological and economic criteria; according to the former, the motivation and the atmosphere in which crime was committed of economic might assist to recognize the economic crime. And according to the latter, disruption of macroeconomic policies (monetary, fiscal and income) and operating companies and businesses, the production, distribution and consumption will show the another side of economic crime’s face. Thus, it is possible to take a step toward the identifying the economic crime, under the light economic criteria and considering the criminological criteria.