جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « حبس » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

One of the problems of human societies in today's world is the crimes of cyber space, which is of great importance due to the damage to the dignity and reputation of people and their privacy. With the spread of cyberspace users and the ever-increasing use of computers in all aspects of human life, the types and manner of these crimes have increased day by day and have posed many questions to researchers in the field of jurisprudence and law. The purpose of this article is to investigate cyberspace and computer crimes from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence the present article is theoretical and has investigated the mentioned question by using descriptive analytical method and in library form. The findings indicate that pronography (prostitution), panhandling, illicit relationships, sex tourism, gambling, marriage manipulation, unauthorized acquisition, unauthorized eavesdropping, unauthorized use, defamation, defamation, insult, publication of lies, disclosure of Jurisprudence is haram and among the punishments recognized in Imamiyya jurisprudence, if the crime committed is in accordance with the title of corruption in the land or in accordance with the crimes required by the hadd, the perpetrator will be sentenced to the same punishment and otherwise, the punishment of ta'zir will include his state. will be. From a legal point of view, the legislator has criminalized these behaviors and has considered appropriate punishment for each of them, including imprisonment, fines and corporal punishment.

The genesis of Iran's encounter with modern legal principles can be traced back to the Constitutional Revolution of the early 20th century [Enghelab-e Mashrooteh], a period that heralded significant legal and political reforms aimed at dismantling the autocratic governance structures of the time. The revolution catalyzed the introduction of Western legal concepts such as law, parliament, and constitution into the Iranian socio-political lexicon, laying the foundation for a new legal order. This order was characterized by the amalgamation of religious decrees with modern legal structures, a process that, while innovative, was not devoid of challenges. The crux of the issue, as identified in the current research, lies in the hasty and uncritical adoption of these new legal concepts without a thorough understanding of their theoretical, philosophical, and historical underpinnings. This oversight has precipitated a crisis of theory and practice within the Iranian legal system, manifesting in conceptual ambiguities and operational inefficiencies. At the heart of this research is the reevaluation of the punishment of imprisonment, a fundamental concept in criminal law, through a comparative lens focusing on modern criminal law and Imamia jurisprudence.

The research is driven by the imperative to scrutinize the punishment of "imprisonment" within the context of Iran's hybrid legal system, specifically examining how this form of punishment is conceptualized, rationalized, and implemented in modern criminal law vis-à-vis Islamic law. The overarching question guiding this inquiry is: How does the comparative analysis of the punishment of imprisonment in modern criminal law and Islamic law illuminate the theoretical and practical discrepancies in the Iranian criminal law, and what implications do these findings have for the evolution of a more coherent legal framework?

The hypothesis underlying this research posits that the theoretical and practical dissonance observed in the application of imprisonment in the Iranian legal system stems from a fundamental misalignment in the criminal rationalities governing modern criminal law and Islamic law. This research suggests that while modern criminal law predominantly views imprisonment through the lens of disciplinary power aimed at the normalization and psychological correction of the criminal for societal reintegration, Islamic law approaches punishment with a focus on the spiritual and moral rehabilitation of the individual, emphasizing the afterlife and the perfection of the human soul. This divergence, it is hypothesized, results in fundamentally different implementations of imprisonment, with the modern approach prioritizing correctional normalization, and the Islamic approach advocating for the preservation of the individual's moral agency and freedom.

To explore the delineated research question and hypothesis, the study employs a multifaceted methodological approach that combines doctrinal research with inductive, interpretive, and argumentative analysis. This methodology is predicated on an extensive review of philosophical texts, legal treatises, and jurisprudential discourse from both the modern and Islamic legal traditions. The framework for this comparative study is structured around identifying and analyzing the differences in criminal rationality between modern criminal law and Imamia jurisprudence and how these differences manifest in the conceptualization and practice of imprisonment.
     A critical component of this methodology involves examining the evolution of the modern prison system, particularly its emergence as a mechanism of disciplinary power in the modern era, aimed at seizing the individual’s soul and will for the purpose of societal normalization. This analysis is juxtaposed with the examination of imprisonment within Imamia jurisprudence, where the focus is on penal correction with an emphasis on moral and spiritual rehabilitation, highlighting a significant departure from the modern system's focus on psychological correction and normalization.
     Furthermore, the research methodology includes a critique of the existing theoretical and practical frameworks within which imprisonment is situated in the Iranian legal system, arguing that a neglect of the nuanced differences in criminal rationality has led to the uncritical adoption of modern penal practices that may not align with the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of Imamia jurisprudence. Through this comparative analysis, the study seeks to unearth the theoretical and practical implications of these differences, offering insights into how a more informed and theoretically coherent approach to the punishment of imprisonment could be developed within Iran's legal system.

The findings of the study illuminate a significant divergence in the conceptualization and application of imprisonment between modern criminal law and Islamic law. Modern criminal law, with its roots in disciplinary power, seeks to reform the criminal by targeting the soul and will, aiming for normalization within society. This approach signifies a qualitative shift from physical to psychological modes of punishment, where the prison becomes a space for the psychological transformation and normalization of individuals. The emphasis is on altering the criminal's personality and psychological structure in relation to their crime, marking a profound intensification of power that penetrates the deepest layers of individual identity.
     Contrastingly, Islamic law offers a fundamentally different perspective, viewing punishment as a means to achieve the perfection of the human soul and maintain civil order, grounded in the attainment of afterlife happiness. This system prioritizes the individual's freedom and moral agency in accepting Islamic law and self-correction. Punishments, including imprisonment, are framed as corrective measures that deprive the individual of certain freedoms only to the extent necessary for societal protection and personal purification from sin. The emphasis is on voluntary correction and spiritual discipline, with non-penal institutions like repentance playing a significant role in the penal rationality.
     The discussion of these findings highlights the theoretical and practical challenges posed by the hybrid nature of current Iranian legal system, which incorporates elements of both modern and Islamic law approaches to punishment. The research underscores the importance of penal rationality in defining the effectiveness and ethical grounding of penal institutions. Without a clear alignment with a coherent penal rationality, the legal system risks perpetuating theoretical confusion and practical inefficiencies.

The study concludes that the current form of imprisonment in the Iranian legal system represents a critical juncture between two divergent penal rationalities. The acceptance of modern imprisonment practices, characterized by an emphasis on psychological normalization, does not necessarily represent a more humane approach to punishment but rather a shift in the focus of disciplinary power from the body to the soul. This shift, while reducing the physical harshness of punishments, intensifies the control over the individual's identity and autonomy.
     In contrast, the Islamic penal system, as understood through Islamic law, offers a vision of punishment that centers on the spiritual and moral rehabilitation of the individual, respecting their freedom and capacity for self-correction. This approach aligns punishment with broader ethical and spiritual objectives, such as the preservation of fundamental human interests and the perfection of the human soul.
     The research calls for a critical self-awareness within the Iranian criminal law system to reconcile these divergent penal rationalities. It poses pressing questions about the future direction of Iran's penal system: should it adhere more closely to the principles of Islamic law, or continue incorporating aspects of modern penal rationality? The exploration of these questions requires further investigation into the social, cultural, and legal feasibilities of adopting either penal rationality more fully.
     This conclusion serves as a call to action for legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to engage in a deeper examination of the foundational principles guiding punishment in Iran. By contemplating the possibilities for embracing either Islamic  law or modern penal rationality, future research can pave the way for a more coherent, just, and effective legal system that respects both the individual's dignity and societal needs.

Industrial property rights are important issues that play an important role in the technological and industrial development of countries. Criminal guarantee for the protection of this type of intellectual property rights and its examples such as trade secrets and trademarks have received less attention and investigation. The purpose of this article is to investigate the criminal guarantee for breach of trade secrets and trademarks from the perspective of jurisprudence and Iranian law and French law. This article is descriptive and analytical, and it has investigated the mentioned subject by using the library method. The findings indicate that in French law, the punishment of imprisonment and fine is determined as a criminal sanction for the violation of trade secrets and trademarks. In Iranian law, unlike French law, there is no criminal protection of trade secrets and there are no comprehensive laws in this regard. Trade secrets are not mentioned in any of the articles of the patent law, and only the law of electronic commerce and the law of computer crimes and the law of publishing and free access to information have implicitly and limitedly mentioned and supported this right. Violation of the confidentiality of trade secrets is mentioned in the laws of Iran in scattered laws and in a vague and incomplete manner. Another point is that the French law for the violation of trade secrets and trademarks has determined a monetary penalty of up to one million francs, which is in line with decriminalization and reducing the motivation of industrial property crimes, which are mainly financial, because the economic benefit of committing the crime is largely eliminated.

The discussion of certainty and certainty of punishments in crimes against drugs and psychotropic substances means that when a person intends to commit a crime, what is the probability of his arrest from the stage of detection of the crime, and according to this, what is the probability of punishment and the completion of all There is a punishment in the judicial process for the perpetrators of crimes related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which during the investigations carried out by the author by examining the apparent and actual statistics of crimes related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic drugs committed in the period of 1398 and 1399 in In Alborz province, it has been determined that the degree of certainty and certainty of the punishments according to the statistics obtained remains like an iceberg in which only the snow on the tip of the peak is visible, and this issue increases the number due to the increase and usefulness of committing a crime against the punishment. crimes and reduced deterrence of punishments

Among the contracts in law and jurisprudence, there are still contracts that, despite their applications, remain unknown and unused because they have not been properly introduced. One example of such contract is the Habs contract whose framework, which also defines it, is dealt with ambiguously and summarily. The ambiguity is easily noticeable in the conflicting opinions of jurisprudents, which baffle the readers and have led to jurists either ignoring it or touching upon it most briefly. The lack of literature on this concept has caused this useful contract not to receive the attention it deserves, and it is even classified as an innominate contract by some jurists, and summarily tapped into by legislators. Therefore in general, we face a challenge in knowing it, its rules and position and applying it. To respond to this challenge and establish a framework for the Habs contract, it is necessary to first explain the correct concept of Habs in jurisprudence and law and identify its position in the Iranian Legal System. Therefore, this paper intends to bridge a gap in law and jurisprudence, compensate for the brevity of law, resolve the ambiguity and obscurity, delineate the concept of Habs, and, finally, identify and stabilize the position of this useful contract in Iranian Law in terms of recognition of rules and effects in statutory laws. The current descriptive–analytical study first distinguishes different types of Habs contracts by categorizing various jurists’ and jurisprudents’ opinions in this area and criticizing them, and then arrives at a proper definition of Habs in common, general and particular senses. Afterward, using the insight gained about Habs and considering the requirements for a contract to be nominated, the position of the Habs contract is established in the Iranian Legal Systems as a nominate contract in the light of relevant rules and regulations.

The Law on Reduction of Penalty Imprisonment in 2019, with different goals, intended tolerances for the perpetrators of penal crimes such as theft, unaware that this amount of tolerance can have adverse effects in terms of social security. The announcement of petty theft for the first time, reducing the degree of punishment, expanding the powers of judges in the matter of reducing and converting the punishment of the perpetrators, removing the criminal description of the crime of petty theft and developing favorable institutions are among the most important challenges of the reduction law regarding the crime of theft. Although the flexibility of the criminal system against petty crimes and random criminals can be a defensible approach, the situation created by the reduction law to deal with the crime of petty theft is very traumatic and its correction is inevitable.

The Law on Reduction of Imprisonment Punishment approved in 2019 has made important changes in the field of crimes punishable by Ta'zir and the way of determining the punishment for them, and the scope of these changes has affected the widespread way of punishing the crime of theft. What provisions or facilities this law has provided in relation to the crime of theft, which at least theoretically has been introduced as the factor (or at least one of the most important factors) of the increase in theft in the society, requires an independent research or study. This issue, along with the fact that the reduction law was approved in 2019, and so far not much research has been done on the dimensions and aspects of this law and its relationship with the crime of theft, can show the necessity of conducting and innovation of the current research. The aim of the current research is to analyze the law on reducing the punishment of penal servitude approved in 2019 in relation to theft, especially petty theft, and the position of this law in punishing the crime of theft. Did he mean the crime of theft, especially petty theft? And in the second place, what harms and challenges have these measures faced and what effects will it have on the punishment and dealing with petty theft in the society?

By adopting a critical approach and using descriptive and analytical methods and library tools, this research seeks to find an answer or answers to the above questions, and in carrying out this mission, it is necessary to provide a brief explanation about the scope of the research from two perspectives; First, explaining the legal scope of the concept of "petty theft" and then examining the objectives of the approval and the contents of the Law on Reduction of Taziri Imprisonment approved in 2019 in a brief way.

The Law on Reduction of Penalty Imprisonment approved in 2019, with the set of predictions and measures that it contains in the direction of decriminalization (contrary to the title of the law which only refers to imprisonment) in the crimes subject to Tazeer, faces serious challenges in terms of justifying deterrence of punishment. This issue and the high volume of these crimes and their lack of control will cause the public order of the society to be seriously damaged and we will witness the decline of the effectiveness of criminal laws regarding this category of petty theft. Measures such as the inclusion of four petty thefts in the number of punishable crimes, reducing the degree of punishment for petty theft, increasing the possibility of reducing and converting the punishment, as well as benefiting from favorable institutions for the perpetrators of petty theft, can be considered the most important changes of the Law on the Reduction of Petty Theft approved in 2019. brought This amount of tolerance and tolerance in punishing criminals may not cause a big problem for the perpetrators of some minor crimes such as insult, defamation or even destruction, because we are less likely to face the phenomenon of "professional criminals" in such crimes, and therefore reducing and converting their punishment can It can even provide some criminological goals, but regarding petty theft, it can cause an increase in theft.

The most important legislative solution to overcome the existing problems is to amend the law in such a way that, first, the beginning of petty theft is re-defined as a punishment and the perpetrators of petty theft are punished according to their behavior. Second, the arbitrary forgiveness of petty crimes, which also includes petty theft, is another important challenge that deserves attention. Although the increase of expungement crimes in line with restorative justice programs can be defensible, but the legislator, by placing a note, half the punishment determined for all expungement crimes, regardless of the subject matter, the importance and deterrent power of the punishments, which are determined based on the principle of proportionality between the severity of the crime and the type and amount of the punishment. It cannot be considered acceptable to reduce what has been done, therefore the principle of proportionality has been violated and deserves to be corrected. Third, with the process that the legislator has taken in the law on reducing the punishment of penal servitude in order to reduce the punishment of imprisonment and turn it into alternative punishments, the most important example of such punishments is a fine, among the general crimes, petty theft has the most negative effects. It comes with; Because this method adopted by the legislator has caused petty thefts due to the fact that they are generally forgivable and their punishment has been reduced by half (in the implementation of the supplementary note to Article 37 of the Criminal Code) and also with the powers that the judicial authority has in order to benefit the perpetrators. It has the qualities of a judicial abbreviation, in practice, it causes the general punishment of the perpetrators of petty theft to be very short-term imprisonment or actually to be turned into a fine.

Freedom is one of the most important blessings and one of the most obvious natural and basic human rights, which has been considered among the most controversial issues throughout the centuries and ages. One of the types of freedom is the freedom of the body, according to which a person can do whatever he wants. This type of freedom has been supported for a long time, and even today, international declarations related to human rights and the basic and ordinary laws of different countries support it in various ways. On the other hand, establishing public security and protecting people's privacy and rights in dealing with threats and possible aggression by abnormal persons and violating the rights of others has always been one of the main concerns of the guardians of the judicial justice system. In this regard, the application of prison sentences as a reaction to denying freedom against criminals and lawbreakers is a common method in most countries of the world. The idea that the application of this punishment will reform and socialize the criminal and prevent the repetition of the crime, and on the other hand, it brings intimidation and general deterrence and prevents potential criminals from repeating the crimes, is one of the most important justifications for the prison sentence. Although professors and legal scholars have dealt with the issue of the pathology of prison punishment in various articles, but since this issue is important and it should be considered, different aspects of the issue have not been examined. Therefore, it was felt necessary to deal more with this issue. The main objective of this study, while using the library research method, is to identify the judicial and executive gaps of this punishment and provide suggestions to compensate for the shortcomings and achieve the relevant goals.

Over time, placing prison in the category of the main punishment has reached a point where not only the goals that the prison was supposed to fulfill have not achieve, but also it has turned into a higher problem that caused many challenges for the prisoners, their families and the governments. The present research focused on de-prisoning from the perspective of the comparative jurisprudence of the Islamic Denominations and was carried out with the descriptive-analytical method and the method of collecting library and documentary information. The obvious result of this approach will be a new theory to reduce the ever-increasing population of prisons and prevent corruption and the consequences of imprisonment. Based on the findings of this study, the imprisonment can be considered as a broad meaning that includes putting a person under care, which we called "imprisonment in the general sense". On the other hand, taking into account that "imprisonment in the special sense" (confinement in a specific place) causes harm and is against self-sovereignty and the principle of personal punishment, and not only it does not usually lead to the realization of the desired goals and philosophy of the Shariah; On the contrary, it has effects against it and has shown its ineffectiveness in practice, "illegitimacy" can be accepted as a rule and the first principle about it. Based on this, if in a certain case, imprisonment is specified in the Shariah evidence, it is necessary to consider its alternative if it is optional, and if it is determined, other examples such as care with new tools and devices should be considered (imprisonment in the general sense); Except for rare cases where the definite necessity of imprisonment in the special sense without considering its function.

In Iranian criminal system, imprisonment is the main and primary punishment for many crimes as in the past. It is sufficient to review Article 19 of the current Penal Code in this regard, which is at the top of all penal punishments, regarded as imprisonment. Since, this way of punishment has caused many challenges, alternatives for imprisonment and reduction of penal servitude are among the most important legal solutions. In addition to the requirement in the fourth principle of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on all laws based on Islamic standards, the Islamic punishment law, as the main law of this criminal system, has been explicitly attributed to Islam. However, this fact that “imprisonment should be the main and primary punishment for many crimes, and if there is corruption or expediency from the point of view of attribution to Islamic law and it is necessary to consider an alternative or reduce its amount” requires investigation in terms of being attributed to the Islamic legislator. This research is of double importance because by imprisoning, the freedom of the person in all contexts are excluded not that restrictions are imposed only on the crime committed; hence its broad utilization may be incompatible with the human right to freedom or other natural rights. In this regard, the required data were collected by documentary method from religious evidences and the studies of Shia and Sunni scholars, and according to the results of analysis, it has been proven that its broad use in the form of the main and primary punishment with reference to legitimacy of imprisonment in religious narrative evidence and accordingly in comparative jurisprudence or by referring to the absence of imprisonment in the exclusivity of examples of punishment is not allowed. Hence, it is suggested that the same appropriate punishments to be the main and primary punishment for crimes. This is the right way to prevent imprisonment, which is incompatible with comparative jurisprudence.

Criminologists have long used every opportunity to warn criminal policymakers about the adverse health, criminological, moral and social consequences of incarceration. In our country, however, considering the abovementioned costs and adverse effects, decarceration has been given priority, especially for minor crimes and criminals without a criminal record; but its implementation in practice faces several judicial and operational challenges. In this paper, the judicial and operational challenges of decarceration are examined in the light of court rulings, using an analytical-descriptive method.The obtained findings indicate that the most important identified challenges are frequency of criminal cases, sustainable incarceration oriented culture among judges, lack of proper infrastructure, unprepared accepting bodies and the society incarceration-centered public culture, respectively. Some of the proposed solutions to cope with the current situation are: changing the culture of incarceration among judges by providing proportionate execution guarantee; increasing the supreme judicial authority’s attention to the equipment needed to implement this policy in such a way that the statistics oriented procedure of the judiciary do not distort the decarceration policy; monitoring the performance of judges in terms of adherence to macro-judicial policies in the field of community-based punishments; real and continuous monitoring of how to file Personality Record; improving the level of knowledge of judges by holding continuous training courses; upgrading the level of hardware and software facilities for applying non-custodial sentences and increasing the awareness of relevant institutions, regarding their rights and duties and reforming the culture of public punishment.

The protection of intellectual property rights is one of the important factors in the growth and development of science and technology in society. In this paper, an attempt is made to investigate the mechanisms of criminal protection of intellectual property rights in Iranian and Egyptian laws.

This paper is descriptive-analytical and the library method is used. Ethical considerations: In this paper, the originality of the texts, honesty, and trustworthiness have been observed.

The findings indicate that both in Iranian and Egyptian laws, intellectual property is criminally protected. However, in Iranian law, there are inadequacies in the field of legislation regarding some examples of industrial property, such as trade secrets. In order to protect intellectual property in Iranian law, penalties such as compensation, fines, flogging and imprisonment have been established for the role of intellectual property. In Egyptian law, violation of literary and artistic property rights and industrial property is accompanied by punishments such as fines and imprisonment, with the difference that imprisonment is less than fines and punishments are mainly in the form of fines.

Imprisonment for infringement of intellectual property rights not only does not compensate the creator and the owner of the work, but is contrary to removing of imprisonment. Therefore, increasing and replacing fines in criminal penalties and resorting to civil mechanisms are important issues that need the attention of the legislative in protecting intellectual property rights.

The possibility of using criminal tools in legal affairs is a matter of dispute between jurists. If a person is accused of committing a crime, the possibility of his arrest has been accepted in some cases, but the use of such punitive measures in legal matters requires the examination of its authorization or prohibition from a jurisprudential and legal perspective. The conflict of rights between creditors and debtors has led to disagreements in this regard. Considering that the principle in initial treatment of individuals is that their actions are based on integrity and innocence, it seems that if the debtor claims insolvency, it will not be possible to detain him until the truth or falsity of his claim is proven. Imami and Sunni jurists have also examined this matter- an examination of the evidence of their rulings will also demonstrate that it is not possible to order the arrest of a debtor claiming insolvency. In this article, the correct ruling in this case will be determined through the epistemology of this important point of view from perspectives of the jurists of both sects and judging the proposed opinions. Noting the correct theory in jurisprudence, we will provide a detail interpretation of the relevant laws applicable to the debtor claiming insolvency.

Use of imprisonment as an important sanction in dealing with delinquency in the criminal policy of different countries has not been very successful and this has led to the tendency of legislative and judicial authorities to use its alternatives. Why and how to restrict imprisonment for women is one of the issues that has occupied the minds of thinkers and policymakers at the national and international levels. Research suggests a double necessity using alternatives to incarceration for this group of convicts because their personality and behavior often do not pose a significant danger to others to make their imprisonment necessary. In addition, the punishment of imprisonment not only causes the occurrence and spread of mental illnesses and increases self-harm among them in prison environments that are primarily male in nature, and in practice cannot help their rehabilitation, but also incarceration will increase the risk of delinquency in them and even their children, both inside and outside the prison. Therefore, in the present article which is done by a descriptive-analytical method, it would be clear that the capacity and experience of penal systems both in our country and in the West have shown that alternatives such as self-regulatory penalties, community services and financial penalties, if used accurately and appropriately, can prevent further harm to this important segment of society while preventing the recurrence of crime. A view that is quite consistent with the minimalist approach of Islam in dealing with imprisonment.

Although, according to a number of Islamic traditions and Quranic verses, the legitimacy of the imprisonment can be verified briefly, the main challenge is that the imposition of this punishment in some cases appears to conflict with the rights of others, such as the incarceration of the offender's mother which is in violation of the rights of the child and the imprisonment of a criminal householder which is in conflict with the rights of his wife and children due to significant damage sustained by them. What comes to the mind is providing a solution to the conflict and settling the dispute of the rules of the Wizr through execution of the sentence of imprisonment. The present research, while explaining the dimensions of the imprisonment, as well as the explanation of the rule of Wizr which implies the concept of the principle of personal punishment, seeks to answer these conflict. According to jurisprudential sources and well-known narrative books, it is concluded that the rule of Wizr (the principle of the personal punishment) is an unexceptionable principle, and the imprisonment should be executed only in limited cases. In the conflict of the imprisonment and the rule of the Wizr, the rule of Wizr shall be governed and the sentence of imprisonment shall not be executed.

While imprisonment (Habs) is the most common criminal response in the criminal law system of the Islamic Republic, its recognition and legitimacy remain contested since the victory of the Islamic Revolution. The authority of imprisonment (Habs) as ta'zir and its limits has been debated by Imami scholars. This is a point of view and is open to review. The first mission of this article is to analyze the opinions of jurists regarding the legitimacy and limits of the application of this punishment. A selected view on the illegitimacy of the prison sentence (Habs) was selected after presenting this subject. As a result of proving this assertion, a new theory will dominate the penal system in the country, and that theory is that punishments should be minimally incarcerated. According to this theory, the legislator should determine this punishment in a confined manner and in cases of necessity. It is not possible to extend it to a wide range of crimes. In this article, the argumentative approach will be to discuss both the lexical meaning of the word imprisonment (Habs) and the Qur'anic meaning - as well as to examine the central emphasis of fundamentalism in the interpretation of texts and the philosophy of punishment legislation. Developments in the criminal law of the Islamic Republic in the field of the use of prison sentences have also been discussed in the present study.

Criminological studies show that with all the reforms that have been made in the prison system in recent years, which have led to a relative improvement in the physical condition of prisons, the positive, beneficial and expected results on the admission of criminals and the prevention of crime in Did not have a general level; Therefore, in recent years, the issue of alternative punishments to imprisonment has been discussed and the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 has addressed this issue in some articles. The Islamic Penal Code adopted in 1392 has dedicated a separate chapter to explaining the provisions related to alternatives to imprisonment and in Article 64 has listed five types of alternative punishments to imprisonment; That is, the period of care, fines and daily fines, house arrest, deprivation and utility services. One of the alternative punishments is performing public services, according to which the convict is forced to work for free in a public institution. This type of punishment is also intended to rehabilitate and correct the convict by preventing the negative effects of imprisonment. One of the most important principles of community-based punishment of free public services is the correction and social openness of the offender by implementing this punishment in the context of society. Of course, it seems that the same injuries or factors that have caused the ineffectiveness of imprisonment, if it continues, one can not hope that the implementation of alternatives to imprisonment will have the desired result, and the implementation of such alternatives may actually be a way to get rid of Be punished.

There is an important discussion among jurists on how to order about postponing debtor that requires a careful look at the prorogation, an examination of the correct meaning and an explanation of its judgments and effects. Proposing a critical-descriptive method and stating a clear definition, the present article seeks to approach this view that a postponing debtor is the one who postpones his debts by hiding his property and not presenting it to the judge for sale and payment of his debts. This definition does not apply to the debtor with an overt property who only refuses to pay his debts. After expressing the exact meaning of postponing debtor, the study divides prorogation into three types of prorogation in real estates, property and rights. However, by prorogation in the words of jurists, it is meant financial debt. Therefore, in order to punish a postponing debtor, the ruler should first blame him in language. The next step is to punish him with beatings. And then if he continues to insist on prorogation, he should be imprisoned until he pays his debts. The ruler or the judge can also add some additional effects to this matter such as his legal privation, prevention of his traveling, not accepting his testimonies, and receiving damages due to prorogation.