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

This article examines the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions in relation to student offenses in academic misconduct cases. The primary goal of the research is to evaluate the structure and processes of disciplinary committees in universities and to assess the adherence to principles of justice and fair trial in these proceedings. The research method is qualitative, involving content analysis of university disciplinary regulations and a review of real cases of student misconduct. The findings indicatethat, in many instances, there is a lack of proportionality between the offense committed and the imposed punishment, with students facing unjust and disproportionate sanctions. This issue is particularly evident when minor infractions result in severe penalties, leading to dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice among students.Furthermore, the disciplinary process in many universities is opaque and lengthy, which increases psychological stress for the accused students. The lack of adequate communication regarding students' rights and the absence of a full defense opportunity are major violations of fair trial principles. Based on the research findings, several recommendations are proposed for improving the structure and processes of disciplinary actions, including revising regulations, ensuring the independence of disciplinary bodies, and fully adhering to fair trial principles. These suggestions aim to guarantee justice and proportionality in dealing with student misconduct cases. The final conclusion emphasizes that revising disciplinary regulations and increasing transparency in the disciplinary process could help improve fairness and reduce dissatisfaction in universities.

The extraordinary power invested in the judiciary necessitates a high standard of conduct, a commitment to upholding the law, and performing duties in an impartial manner. Appropriate behavior both within and outside the courtroom is a fundamental requirement of judicial duty. As judicial power increases, there is a corresponding need to adhere to clear ethical standards. When there are violations of laws and behavioral standards, accountability and disciplinary proceedings are essential. The Iranian legislator, through the "Law on Supervision of Judges' Behavior," seeks to regulate judges' conduct by monitoring professional behavior and imposing preventive and strict disciplinary sanctions. However, in many instances, there are still legal ambiguities that severely question the independence of judges. In the United States, at both the federal and state levels, criminal policy—considering higher-level documents and adherence to international standard principles—addresses the criminalization and disciplinary response to judicial misconduct. During the investigation of judicial misconduct, the principle of judicial independence is respected, and efforts are made to maintain public trust in the judiciary by ensuring transparency in proceedings and avoiding confidentiality in the trial phase. It is observed that U.S. criminal policy in dealing with allegations of misconduct by federal judges, especially Supreme Court judges (but not regional judges), tends to be lenient and overlook certain issues. However, at the state level, stricter oversight prevails, and more diverse responses are implemented. In many cases where the misconduct is minor, the matter is addressed informally and privately. This approach could be considered by Iranian legislators. Additionally, adopting disciplinary sanctions with a reconciliatory approach rather than merely a punitive one in dealing with offending judges could be a positive step forward.

One of the challenges of the administrative system is the emergence of conflicts of interest among employees, which can imperil the public interests related to their job duties due to the motivation to pursue personal interests. The corrupting capacity of such a situation challenges the static stance of some systems in not intervening until the actualization of the abuses of those involved, and demonstrates the need to design an effective criminal policy that can counter this with the proper use of formal sanctions. In the present study, the reactionary rather than preventive responses to the criminal policy of the Persian Gulf countries regarding the conflict of interest situation have been studied in a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the research show that some countries, such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, have adopted a delinquentization approach to conflict of interest, in which they deal with violators by administrative and disciplinary sanctions. This is while countries like Iraq, Oman and Kuwait use the criminal sanctions. Items such as activities and cooperation with private institutions related to government employment, holding stocks in private institutions related to the employee's job, refusing to forgo personal interest or resignation from a government job that creates conflict, refusing to render financial statements of employees who are exposed to conflicts of interest as well as abuse of job position in conflict of interest situations where it is not covered by the usual offenses in criminal law are among the examples that have faced formal and especially criminal sanctions in the criminal policy of these countries.

The application of penal guarantees before specialized administrative courts، as part of the right to a fair trial، could go against the fundaments and the practical and technical considerations of dejudicialisation current since this could lead to a kind rejudicialisation of the proceedings before these، non - judicial bodies called. Based on this observation that there are two opposing requirements، somehow، we should respect these two requirements so that the considerations of the two is added and followed a balanced way.