فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری
پیاپی 26 (بهار 1398)

The new perspectives of criminology,penology and criminal sociology, which are based in part on the reformation and treatment of criminals and their social rehabilitation, have affected the criminal law, which has led to stinging the punitive rights and Proof of inefficiency of some types of punishment, including imprisonment. The process of modifying punishable thoughts and reforming the prison system's structure and the use of alternative prisoners are on the agenda, and the Iranian legislator has been devoted about 5% of the articles of (1392) penal code to such punishments. However, it should be determined what factors lead to the use or non-use of punishments? What challenges do judges face to face with the use of these corrective and therapeutic tools? Answering these questions was done by analyzing court verdicts, which was conducted in this research using SPSS analytical software. As a result of this study, it can be said that some types of alternative prison sentences, including daily cash penalty and general utility services, are ineffective, and some variables, including the type of crime, the type of punishment, the criminal record of the accused work, are influential on the type and amount of sentences of imprisonment by judges.

For many years, all the attention was focus on the rights of the accused in the criminal procedure. It was justified by the defendant being defenseless before the prosecutor's office. In the meantime, the role of the victim in the advancement of the preliminary investigation process was underestimated and he was passive. With victim-oriented approach, some of the criminal justice systems targeted his role. In the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran, victim's rights have undergone major changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, approved in 2013, in accordance with human rights standards. At the head of these developments are the right to security and the right to maintain identity. Our studies have shown that the approach of the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran, in comparison with the former laws, has taken into account a participatory and active role for the victim in the context of preparatory research. The prediction of the innovative rights in the law provides for the further participation of the victim in order to declare, disclose, prosecute and investigate the crime; including the explicit and transparent support of victim's security against potential threats and the need to maintain his identity.

Realization of social justice is one of the obligations of states. The government promises to citizenships to realize it. Reduction of inequality, income inequality and creation of equal opportunities and facilities are afforded to the government support the poor, prevent from social isolation and criminal behaviors. Nowadays, we are seeing that many of the politicians neither proceed in eradication of poverty and elimination of illegal discrimination nor recognition of fundamental human rights. They assume underclass and the poor as threatening of political and social order. Politicization of crime and social ills, dominance of conservative thoughts on political system and hegemony of neoliberal thoughts on economic system, new right criminology and new penology are reasons that create contexts of criminal intervention in the area of poverty and justify the punitive decision-making to the poor. Consequently, in present era the War on Poverty Policy has transformed to the War on the Poor Policy.

A new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) Dadh Aym critical rereading. "committing conduct that is criminalized by law, is punishable as follows ..." is used, while the same ambiguity in the criminal law of Syria, France
A new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) Dadh Aym critical rereading. "committing conduct that is criminalized by law, is punishable as follows ..." is used, while the same ambiguity in the criminal law of Syria, FranceA new interpretation of the Penal Code in 1392 on the causes of crime modal "or sentence authorized by law" is. the popular theory is that the legal permissibility of three (obedience, strict liability officers, compliance with legal aspects) Dadh Aym critical rereading. "committing conduct that is criminalized by law, is punishable as follows ..." is used, while the same ambiguity in the criminal law of Syria, France

Despite the controversy about the effect of doubt on the abandonment of punishment and the overwhelming acceptance of this issue in Articles 120 and 121 of the Islamic penal code, it has been argued that there is a controversial issue in the elimination of liability and punishment.The Islamic Penal Code also did not mention to this. A number of jurisprudents say: Only in a state can the perpetrator be doubted that at the time of the work he has the certainty or reasonable suspicion of having the license. On the other hand, some other jurisprudents consider absolute suspicion as a criterion of doubt, and some of the other delusions of the legitimacy of criminal action are also considered to be criterion of doubt. What attracts attention in this regard is that the owners of these three theories have all come to the common cause to prove their promise, and the secret of their differences is different perceptions of this argument. The authors of this paper believe that all this evidence is incapable of expressing a criterion of doubt, but it is not permissible to refer to the basic principles and rules.

The word"Similar" in crimes agains human body first was used in Article 290 of Islamic Pneal Code of 2013 of Iran and has no background in Fiqh (Islamic rules) and previous laws. Having no legal-Fiqhi background, this word has caused many ambiguities; at first glance it seems that this word has increased the scope of intentional crimes against human body and obscured the boundaries of mistake in such crimes. Through the paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, authors have reached to this result that “similar felony” in crimes against human body only includes crimes committed to unwanted limbs of a wanted victim with similar or lower consequences than offender’s intention and it excludes unwanted crime against an unwanted victim. Such crimes sometimes are inherently intentional and sometimes supposedly. However it is necessary that legislator amends this ambiguous word and enacts a specific article to elaborately expresses that mistake in committing crime to unwanted limb of a victim in an intentional crime which leads to similar or lower consequences than offender’s intention to other limb, would be intentional.

The intensification of punishment is always one of the most challenging issues of public criminal law. The multiplicity of titles (spiritual, credit) of crime is also no exception to this rule as a factor in the intensification of punishment. Iran's criminal law policy between a person who deals with a violation of several articles of criminal law with a person who has violated only one criminal code by acting. Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code has been set up in the form of a multiplicity of offenses punishable by a crime, but has left many challenges. Nevertheless, the author in this research is one of the most important challenges in the field of multiplicity, including: ambiguity and doubt on how to recognize the punishment, the non-enforceability of the punishment and its consequences, how to impose extra punishments, and the boundary between multiplicity and multiplicity of outcome Has been investigated. In this paper, we have tried to provide answers to the questions of lawmaking and interpretation of the law to resolve these ambiguities.

Legislator in the note of Article 20 of the Islamic Penal Code except legal persons of public law to punish in cases where they exercise sovereignty. Nevertheless, determining the examples of these individuals in practice and that In what cases do these individuals exercise sovereignty, it's not easy. In addition, there are some private entities which the nature of their actions is in the public service, however, they are not exempted from the punishments of Article 20 and their punishment may cause problems in practice. Another ambiguity is that the persons mentioned in the note, if In the direction of non-sovereignty, commit crimes, are there any penalties applicable to them? Given these ambiguities, this research distinguishes between actions of sovereignty Non-sovereignty and defines the causes of exempting legal persons of public law from punishment and investigates the impossibility of imposing any punishment in sovereign affairs. It seeks to highlight the types of legal persons of public law and the status of private professional systems such as some private individuals in charge of public services.