فهرست مطالب mohammadhasan hasani

In the legal criminal policy of Iran, the police are considered the powerful arm of the criminal justice system, which has the most relationship with the victim. This relationship starts from the moment the police arrive at the scene of the crime and continues until the execution of the criminal's punishment and even after that. In this context, the police can reduce the harm caused by crime by supporting the victims. Therefore, due to the importance of such a role for the police, this research has been conducted with the aim of examining the aforementioned support.

This qualitative research has been conducted in terms of practical purpose and in terms of collecting information by documentary method and studying international documents, sources related to the subject, and the obtained information has been analyzed in a descriptive-analytical manne.

The findings of the research show that the victims need the support of the activists of the criminal justice system in order to reduce the damages caused by the crime. and the protections he provides to the victims include: "attention to the victim and his rights, attention to the human dignity of the victim, attention to the concerns and pains of the victim, attention to the opinions and views of the victim, sympathy and sympathy with the victim, providing security and...".

In recent years, the idea of protecting victims has attracted the attention of criminologists, legislators, judicial authorities, and the police, and significant measures have been taken to protect victims, and since the police is the first institution that victims facing it, in order to reduce the damages caused by the crime, it can provide various protections to the victims.

There is no doubt about the necessity of criminalizing the brawl based on maintaining public order and social welfare on the one hand and preventing felonies on the other hand and within the framework of the principle of criminal intervention. The general and unforgivable aspect of this crime shows this There is no doubt about the necessity of criminalizing the brawl based on maintaining public order and social welfare on the one hand and preventing other criminal behaviors based on physical violence on the other hand and within the framework of the principle of criminal intervention. The general and unforgivable aspect of this crime shows this fact. However, the quality of criminalization and punishment of the brawl is commensurate with the mentioned goals and can be discussed within the framework of general principles of criminal law such as the principles of criminal law, proportionality of crime and punishment and fairness. The criminalization and punishment of this crime faces considerable challenges. What is more, goal-oriented, vague and extensive criminalization, on the one hand, and incomplete graded punishment, and incomplete rule-making, guaranteeing the ransom of comprehensive property, on the other hand, has reduced it to faulty criminalization and incomplete punishment. Effective criminalization and punishment of disputes Appropriate ambiguities, especially specifying the occurrence of public and public disputes of at least three people in a known and determined group on the one hand and anticipating gradual punishments in terms of specific mitigating and aggravating qualities and adopting a clear approach to guaranteeing blood money The summons is equally outside the cases of filth and the execution of the oath of all the accused on the other hand.

Considering that all countries have been dealing with political crimes during their formation, and during the establishment and codification of general laws, they have also dealt with such crimes and have thought of solutions in this regard. In Iran, after the victory of the Islamic Revolution and the infusion of the Islamic spirit into the enacted laws, the legislature sought to pass laws that did not conflict with the rights of individuals and could provide what was in the best interest of the individual and the Islamic state. Despite this, the government does not pay much attention to this type of crime and it seems to be one of the most important crimes in taking care of the life of a system. , Has considered the type and reference of the proceedings, etc. And it is completely different from ordinary crimes. Also, in terms of the psychological element, the motive and its type are ineffective in investigating crimes. In political crimes, a benevolent and libertarian claimant causes the perpetrator to enjoy a series of privileges over the ordinary offender. In Islamic jurisprudence, fornication is considered as a political crime and in the definition of political crime, the concept of fornication has been used.

The principle of personal criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim in criminal law is the national legislative and judicial jurisdiction over crimes committed against its own citizens abroad. In fact, accepting foreign punishments and sentences is a condition for the national court. The Iranian-British criminal systems are coherent in identifying this type of jurisdiction, however, the maximum range and multiple standardization in Iran versus the minimum range and single standardization of the United Kingdom indicates a kind of differential criminal policy. In Iranian law, personal jurisdiction based on the victim's citizenship can be applied extensively to all crimes with various criteria, including the victim's citizenship relationship with the country of origin, mutual criminalization, prohibition of retrial and retribution, and the presence of the accused in the country. In English Law, on the other hand, personal jurisdiction is limited to specific offenses. Despite sharing the maximum scope, there are also significant differences in multiple standardization between the two penal systems, i.e., in Iran, only in non-prescribed religious crimes, the rule of mutual criminality and the prohibition of trial and retribution of the perpetrator is accepted. Regarding the crimes of hudud, qisas and diyat, the principle of passive personal jurisdiction is applied and in addition to not being bound by mutual criminality, the trial and retribution of the perpetrator are accepted; a strategy that is not compatible with the criminal case in the UK. Therefore, it seems that the exceptional aspect of personal competence based on the citizenship of the victim requires appropriate identification. Accordingly, the British approach is more prudent.

Humans have been familiar with political crimes since the beginning of human existence, so this article aimed to identify political crimes in Iran and the United States. According to the law, any offense of insulting or defaming the heads of the three branches, the chairman of the Expediency Council, vice presidents, ministers, members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, members of the Assembly of Experts and members of the Guardian Council is an insult to the head or political representative of the country. Foreigners entering the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran In the election laws of leadership, presidency, Islamic Consultative Assembly and Islamic councils of cities and villages, spreading lies, if committed with the motive of reforming the affairs of the country against the management and political institutions or domestic or foreign policies of the country, without intending to strike To have the principle of the system is a political crime. All crimes can be considered political; Because behaviors are legally through a political process, according to which the interests and views of a particular group are served. Political crimes can be distinguished from other types of crimes; Because these kinds of crimes attack the whole value system of a government, not a small part of it. Such acts pose a threat to the ruling political power because they are a criminal act by a conflicting regime.

New approaches by the legislator can be seen in the regulations on the limits of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013. It seems that eliminating the legislative gaps in the previous regulations is one of these approaches. Therefore, there are less ambiguities in issues such as adultery while intoxicated and sleeping, the amount of Ta'zir (indefinite punishment) in case of abolition of definite punishments and also the stipulation of crimes related to Moharebeh (Armed uprising( and also specify the criminalizations of Moharebeh and Ghavadi (Panderism)crimes in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013.Generalization of similar rules in matters such as the application of the judge's knowledge, the effect of repentance on the abolition of Had (definite) crimes, the effect of denial after confession, and also the repetition of Had (definite) crimes, along with the elimination of unnecessary regulations, such as the removal of the hidden clause from the definition of theft, the removal of the general conditions of criminal liability from the conditions of Had theft is also among the legislator's actions in the 2013 Islamic Penal Code. Explaining prudent approaches in the new penal code does not mean that there are no formal or substantive shortcomings in the mentioned regulations. There are some legislative shortcomings in the penal policy governing the Hodod crimes (with definite punishments), which the authors have tried to provide with corrective proposals to address them. Therefore, the need to develop adultery in the sentence of rape to deceive adult women, along with the need to change the legislator's approach in full support of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments is among the suggestions of the articleauthors have tried to provide corrective suggestions to address these issues.The need to develop adultery into rape by deceiving adult women, the need to criminalize Ta'zir (indefinite punishment) adultery, and also, full support for the principle of legality of crimes and punishments are among the suggestions of the article.

There is no doubt about the very recognition of repeated crime institute as a general cause of aggravating the punishment in in the Islamic Penal Code of 2014 and its origination from Islamic jurisprudence; however, it is doubtful whether the aggravating penalizing of this institute is in line with its corresponding jurisprudential texts. The existence of jurisprudential dispute over the determination of the death penalty, dubiety concerning the homogeneity of Hudud and instances of non-codified Hudud, ambiguity regarding the effects of variables of repentance, withdrawing the confession and the territorial scope of the levels of repetition of Haddi crimes, dubiety concerning the legitimacy of the aggravated punishment overtaking the Hadd constitute the jurisprudential challenges in this respect. The purpose of this research is restudying the jurisprudential views and arguments related to the above said challenging topics which has been performed through a descriptive-analytical method and led to presenting necessary conclusions and recommendations to the Iranian criminal legislator in order to adopt an explicit and conscious approach. The necessity of the legal abolition of the death penalty and adoption of the policy of executing the Haddi punishment in addition to the aggravated Taaziri punishment,  regardless of the  homogeneity of crime in the repetition of Haddi crimes, is the most important hypothesis of this paper.

This paper firstly aims to study the developments of the plurality of crimes in the statute of the Taziri Imprisonment Reduction adopted in 2020, then to deal with the question that which of the following countries' legal systems, i.e. Iran and Jordan, has followed a more reasonable policy regarding the issue. The findings reveal that in spite of the existence of common strategies including the explicit admission of material and spiritual plurality, the single and cumulative penalization and the most sever punishment for the spiritual plurality, the two legal systems have also adopted different strategies. For example, in Jordanian law enjoys the following merits: the existence of the explicit stipulation of the withdrawal of spiritual plurality from the single conduct having multiple criminal descriptions and the admission of the principle of material pluralization of crimes. On the contrary, the followings are known as the merits of the Iranian law: the separation of various crimes in penalization, the application of various severe punishments based on the number of crimes, the declaration of the most severe punishment for multiple results, the necessity of imposing of consequential or supplementary punishments similar to the complimentary punishments, the possibility of the mitigation of punishments, the determining of the lenient measure effects of criminal policy.

Legitimate defense is a justifiable and e xcusable factor. T h e basis fo r allo wing mu rder as a le gitimate defense can be found in the theory of human dignity and the symmetry of the right to life / the de nial of the right to life; According to this theory, Scottish law is based on stricter rules than Iranian law regar ding the admission of another murder i n the capacity of self - defense. Adopting a strong retreat rule, acc epting the defendant's only conventi onal mistake in dealing with the attack is necessary t o repel it. T he illegitimacy of murder in the def ense of property, the monopolization of the license to commit rape by a victi m of rape, and its non - extension to other sexual offenses are among t h e hallmarks of S cotland's strict approach. In contrast, the Iranian criminal legislature, by improperly removing the c ondition of appropriateness and using alternative but vague terms by observing the defense steps, adheres to other criteria of defense legitimacy, such as the current or imminent encroachment, the need for one-sided defense and the excessive defense order. Has specified. This is despite the fact that in current Scottish law, or the imminent encroachment, along with some other criteria, is considered an element of necessity in legitimate defense. Despite Scotland's stricter approach to determining the territory of self-defense, the rules of self-defense in Iranian and Scottish law lack the necessary comprehensiveness.

The most important crime against the physical integrity of individuals is premeditated murder, which has different punishments under the laws of different countries. New approaches by the legislator can be seen in the regulations on retaliation in the Penal Code of 1392. It seems eliminating the legislative gaps in the previous regulations is one of these approaches. Hence, there are fewer ambiguities in the new penal code on issues such as the powers of the guardian of the minor, the status of the order to kill another, and the guarantee of the criminal execution of murder victims. Another approach is to protect the public order of society, which she has shown in the form of cases such as protecting all victims of premeditated murder and giving the parents the right to receive blood money without the consent of the killer. In addition, the new legislative view of legitimate defense, as well as the issue of the perpetrator's awareness of the lethality of the act, indicates the deliberate use of the existing capacity of different jurisprudential approaches to resolve legal and judicial problems. In this article, in a descriptive-analytical method and using library tools, the aim is to examine the legislator in setting the rules of retribution, especially in the field of punishment of the parents of the victim, the initial request and issuance of a sentence of retribution in the punishment of Islamic law 1392.

Human personality is gradually perfected in childhood. Flexibility and the ability to modify the behavior of children and adolescents is in conflict with the criminal law of putting offending label, taking security and corrective measures, and specifying a minimum age of responsibility for them. The Islamic Penal law passed in 1392has adopted an improve penal policy in line with Islamic criminal law, taking remarkable innovations including identify the levels of criminal responsibility according to different age groups, taking the age of criminal responsibility more than the age of puberty regardless of being male or female, predicting the a variety of reform-oriented community-based and lenient decisions and measures, in sentence crimes, the involvement of criminal development in the full criminal responsibility, accepting diminished criminal responsibility, particularly in Hadd and Qisas (equal retaliation) offenses. The same is with the criminal law in which the age of puberty is determined due to the criminal development and is considered as elements of criminal responsibility and, in turn, implies a gradual and hierarchical criminal liability and free-handedness of an Islamic state in determining the age of comprehensive criminal liability and the type of responses in that age and before that, except in cases where the legislator expressly prohibited. The paper aims to clarify that determining the age of fifteen solar years old as evidence of growing criminal does not conflict with Islamic law in offenses as well as crimes causing the Hadd and equal retaliation

Respect for the freedom of individuals means freedom of movement for all fundamental human rights, and kidnapping is considered one of its violations and crimes against the spiritual identity of individuals. Kidnapping also falls under the category of hindrance because it may facilitate some crimes. The kidnapping in Iranian and USA law indicates the efforts of the two countries' legislators to protect personal freedom. However, USA criminal policy is more effective in both criminalization and punishment than Iran. The fragmented, inadequate, unnecessary and vague criminalization of criminality and the consequent mismanagement and consequent mismanagement of it have posed serious challenges to Iran's effective criminal protection. In contrast, criminalization of violations of personal liberty as a unit or basic crime and related offenses and the application of a system of punitive penalties for the purpose of accurately establishing the proportionality between crime and punishment in the USA have greatly contributed to its effectiveness .

In various periods of legislation, the Islamic Penal Legislator has established the primary principle of the criminal responsibility of the intoxicated perpetrators based on the well-known jurisprudential viewpoint and considered some exceptions to it. Adoption of such an approach, besides its alignment with the principles of fairness and public order, has led this law to enjoy solid jurisprudential and legal principles. Meanwhile, some significant changes have been made in the criteria of applying this approach in the Islamic Penal Code (2013); among them are making distinction between the voluntary and non-voluntary drunkenness, determining source of drunkenness (addiction toalcohol, drugs, psychotropic drugs, etc.), making changes in the conditions of applying some certain criteria for the enforcement of criminal responsibility like restriction of the previous intention of absolute crime to the previous intention for the occurrence of the crime in question, predicting the new criterion of the knowledge of the crime occurrence, distinction between the proofs of criteria for the criminal liability of crimes committed in drunken state, and legal clarification of the monetary compensation for the criminal responsibility in drunkenness. Nevertheless, this law suffers from some ambiguities and legal deficiencies, including the ambiguity in the type of murder, like a situation where a drunk wants to kill a certain person and someone else is killed by mistake, ambiguity in “subjectivity” or “objectivity of the criterion of the knowledge to crime, ambiguity in the type and amount of punishments prescribed in Article 307, and contradiction or lack of contradiction between Articles 153 and 307 and Articles 120 and 128 of this Act.

Trial procedure constitutes the criteria based on which the political crimes could be distinguished from the ordinary crimes. The procedure which is prevised for the political criminal is different from those of other crimes. The practical result of years of efforts and research for discrimination of the political crimes from the ordinary crimes appears in the procedure and punishment for the political criminals. Any political criminal is granted privileges in comparison to ordinary criminals, namely from the pursuit and investigation stage to the end of duration of the sentence. According to article 168 and clauses 4 and 5 of the political crime law, the Iranian legislator had intended to discriminate between the political and the ordinary crime by prevising an especial trial procedure for the political criminals. Prevision of especial procedure for political crimes indicates that the Iranian legislator had been too soft on political convicts and suspects.

Ignorance-of-law is usually an excuse from criminal liability and among the legal challenges of establishing a balance between maintenance of public order and administration of justice. For the maintenance of social order, everyone is obliged to be aware of the law and the general rule is "ignorance-of-law is no excuse". However, following this maxim would be unfair if proper understanding of the law is impossible. In this regard, the Islamic Penal Code (1392) has adopted a new approach through examining this maxim and its exceptions. Furthermore, some specific rules have been foreseen concerning the ignorance-of-law, especially in the case of punishable offenses and major crimes. This paper aims to explain the general rules and principles of this code and its comparison with the "Dare" Rule, and their limits and credibility in the criminal and non-criminal offences from the perspective of the Islamic Penal Code. Finally, the new approach is criticized.

The "NGOs" and the participation of these organizations in the criminal process is one of the effects of "cooperative criminal policy", which, in addition to the protection aspect of the victim, especially regarding the particular victim, plays an important role in the realization of the citizenship rights and the prevention of the secondary victimization. In addition, in areas where the plaintiff can not easily enter them and the proceeding is difficult, public organizations, which today are sometimes called "private prosecutors" or "quasi-prosecutors", interact with the prosecutor and try to protect the rights of the community and individuals in the debate about the declaration of the crime, adducing evidence, the protest against the sentences and so forth. In this article, considering the innovation of the criminal procedure code ratified in 1392 , we have tried to investigate the criminal offense (article 66) regarding the participation of these organizations and the conditions for their intervention in the criminal process and the existing challenges and deficiencies in this regard, including the development of these organizations in Iran and the gap available in this field, will be analyzed and criticized.