جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "state crime" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The Image of crime in the criminal justice system and criminology basically aims to preserve the power relations of the states (including ststes) and reproduce them. and as a result,the ideology of crime with its individualistic logic, while identifying the crimes of street,does not represent the criminal activities of states.Although in criminal law and critical criminology,some strains of criminal activities of the state are minimally It is recognized under concepts such as (white collar crimes and crimes of legal entities),but these concepts are not able to represent all criminal/harmful behavior of states.With this description,it is obvious that the discourse of criminal law and criminology in a traditional way have avoided paying attention to state crimes,but the non-appearance of these crimes in the list of criminal laws and criminology does not indicate its absence as a phenomenon.    This research,using a descriptive-analytical method,reaches the conclusion that although state crimes In the criminal justice system and criminology,they basically lack "manifest description" as an objective phenomenon (legal construction),but the phenomenon of state crimes is applied in a phenomenological method and based on the principles of ethical and philosophical principles and the consensus of civil society from the perspective of The description of "imagination" will be recognisable,and its strains can be identified in criminology schools and theories as an unmediated (mental) phenomenon.

State crimes are committed by the state against human rights. Although this kind of crime has a long history,the etiology of these crimes still lacks explanatory theories. State crimes One of the white-collar crimes that is the violation of fundamental human rights by the governmental organization. The characteristics of these crimes, such as being organizational, complex, and related to the power structure, are such that they cannot be explained in just one dimension. Thus, there is no choice but to use different theories to explain the state crimes. To achieve this goal, we can use some mainstream criminology theories, such as opportunity.The opportunity theory is a commonly-used approach that is employed to analyze etiology of state crimes. Using the abovementioned theory, the present research aimed to describe the quality of committing state crimes in terms of such elements as incentives,objectives,impedimenta as well as limitations. Research findings suggest that states would commit state crimes in order to preserve and maintain their political power, achieve ideological purposes, access to economical advantages as well as governing people. Holding power, lack of supervision and liability, obscurity, lack of responsibility, public trust, lack of laws supporting citizens’ rights, disinclination of citizens for participation in public affairs and so forth are taken into account as backgrounds which strongly assist the government to achieve its objectives. However, the aforementioned backgrounds accompanied with such elements as illiteracy, civil indifference, fear of the government, as well as presence of such limitations as existing a potent civil society, non-state organizations for defending civil rights, liberal media, and international mechanisms will lead to committing state crimes. The opportunity theory through the use of above-mentioned etiology suggests that improving structures which give the government incentive, increasing  interior and exterior controls which minimize state’s chances to commit crimes as well as strengthening either domestic or international limitations would help to prevent governments from committing state crimes. The proposed theory focuses primarily on structural factors affecting the state crime. These factors include the political structure (with totalitarian and authoritarian rule), the ideology of the ruling class (supremacy arising from nationality, religion, class) and the economic structure (command or Free Market Economy) that provide the basis for state crimes by creating the necessary incentives to commit them, such as community control, ideological control, economic interests and control. In the next stage, in the absence of barriers and control, the government will be in an Institutional anomie and will not refrain from taking any action to achieve its goals. If there are control mechanisms, the government uses neutralization and labeling techniques to overcome them. Ultimately, conditions such as ignorance, civic indifference, non-participation, fear of government, and obedience will contribute to the state crimes. When the government achieves its goals by committing state crimes, and there is no reaction against it, it will commit these crimes again through behavioral reinforcement. Repeating state crimes over and over again means that the government has learned to commit crimes against citizens and has made it as a behavioral trait for itself.Although the opportunity theory can explain the occurrence of state crimes to some extent, but due to its shortcomings, it is unable to explain the various aspects of these crimes, so we need unified theories. So In the late 1960s, criminology became so entrenched in extreme truth-seeking, theoretical crisis, and the endless competition of theories that it required a dramatic transformation to survive. To solve this problem, criminologists, distancing themselves from modern paradigms, have opened their arms to perspectives that seek the future of criminology in the reconciliation of theories without theoretical competition and extreme simplification. Thus, integrative criminology was born. One of the strategies through which integrative criminology seeks to make criminological theories more profitable is the combination of criminological theories, which is referred to as an integrated theory approach. Despite some criticism, this approach was gradually adopted, and integrated theories were born one after another. However, like other criminological theories, most of the integrated theories in the field of street crime were made, and the integrated analysis of different types of white-collar crimes was ignored. One of the white-collar crimes that suffers from the lack of integrated theory is the violation of fundamental human rights by the governmental organization, which is called state crimes. The characteristics of these crimes, such as being organizational, complex, and related to the power structure, are such that they cannot be explained in just one dimension. Thus, there is no choice but to integrate different theories to explain the state crimes. To achieve this goal, we can use some mainstream criminology theories, such as opportunity, labeling, control theories, neutralization and anomie techniques, as well as critical theories, like Marxist and Structural criminology.

The legal analysis of the current situation in Gaza reveals a complex interplay between a genocidal war and a prolonged disastrous occupation, giving rise to what can be termed as “Gazocide”. This innovative conceptualization encapsulates the systematic and sustained destruction of a protected group at least as defined by the UN Genocide Convention. However, and at the same time it algorithmically explores a new threshold in destruction levels against humanity. The genocidal war in Gaza is characterized by actions demonstrating intent to destroy specific ethnic, religious and national groups. Current paper which has been conducted by legally socio-historical approach finds that the criminal attacks on civilians, intentional destruction of infrastructure and conditions leading to physical destruction, not only align with the legal definition of genocide, but more importantly goes further to shape a new threshold of severity in galaxy of international criminal law.

The construct of crime in the criminal justice, in terms of its political ideology, basically seeks to preserve the power relations of the upper class, esp. the state, as well as its reproduction. Therefore, harmful and criminogenic acts of state are not mainly criminalized, and if criminalized, they are not recognized in the criminal justice system. These acts even have not been recognized in mainstream criminology. As a result, the victims of such extensive harms and injuries caused by the consequences of public and governmental programs and policies are not recognized. Accordingly, the main goal of the present article is to explore and redefine the harmful acts of state based on a broad and process-oriented approach (i.e. zemiology), beyond of the traditional approach (i.e. the legal definition of crime).This alternative approach can expand recognizing the scope of harmful acts of state, as well as recognizing the widespread victimization of these acts. Based on a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to explain the failure of criminology and criminal justice to recognize and redefine the injurious acts of state and concludes that an exit door for this unpleasant situation is to disclose the hidden image of state crime emphasizing upon the zemiological approach in order to inclusion of all violations of international norms called as harm and soft laws. Such an approach allows the adoption of multiple responsive measures including proactive, reactive and control responses in facing with state crime.

Almost all governments, whether libertarian or authoritarian, resort to filtering in order to prevent crime in the cyberspace due to political, cultural, etc. considerations but often due to technical and criminological limitations and inappropriate filtering, not only are they not successful in achieving their goal, but also violate fundamental human rights such as the right to freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy. Therefore, this article, examines whether filtering is a crime prevention way or as a crime itself. This article concludes in a descriptive-analytical approach that if governments are satisfied to the legality of filtering and disregard for conditions such as the necessity and appropriateness in filtering it has led to their excessive interference in the fundamental human rights of citizens and the damages caused by such filtering can be raised by the use of critical criminology teachings with the approach of social pathology in the form of state crime.

Explaining new phenomena and events in various fields using macro and interdisciplinary theories and strategies is on of the practical tools for better understanding of these phenomena in order to adopt appropriate management-executive approaches to them. Therefore, understanding the concept of "Sovernment Crime" as a systematic violation of citizens' rights by the government, under "Game Theory" as one of the strategic theories to explain phenomena and events in the fields of social sciences and international relations, is a matter that is both from the perspective of understanding and promotion. The so-called government crime literature is worthy of attention in terms of attention to the objective and practical aspects of identifying and responding to government crimes. Therefore, in this article, considering the state and citizens as two main actors in different fields, and using the principles and elements of game theory, it has been argued that the actors participating in a game have rationality and by calculating their possible profit and loss participate in the game process and seek maximum profit and minimum loss. These actors reach equilibrium at a point known as the saddle point - in which each actor has gained a certain amount of profit and loss. This point is the point where it is no longer possible to receive more profit and less loss for any of the parties, and if the game continues, they will suffer a decrease in profit and an increase in loss. Finally, it has been concluded that the states, with tools such as bringing other actors into their playing field with citizens, using rents and information tools, changing the rules and regulations governing the game, cause the balance to be disturbed and the saddle point to be shifted to turned towards themselves and thus cause systematic violation of citizens' rights.

Violation of the fundamental rights of citizens in various forms of violation of political, economic, social and cultural rights and areas related to health and education, by states that are primarily responsible for guaranteeing them, in terms of criteria can be called as "state crime".    This descriptive-analytical article aims to focus on a specific dimension of the concept of state crime, in form of a "crime as harm" approach to the crimes committed by state such as political, cultural, environmental crimes, crimes against health, which are based on the harmful and power-oriented structure of the government, citing some objective examples and complaints received by the Board of Supervision of Law Enforcement Fundamental, discusses., legislators, by enacting laws that violate fundamental rights of citizens, including discriminatory laws or laws restricting constitutional rights or harmful laws, the phenomenon of "illegal laws" and "laws without legitimacy." which means laws that are contrary to justice and fundamental rights; Even if those laws have undergone formal legal formalities to become enforceable. Therefore, by infringing on the fundamental rights of their citizens and by adopting various policies, especially in the political, economic, cultural and judicial fields, governments inflict many harms on their citizens in various fields. These violations have in many cases relied on the law or are behaviors that, due to the monopoly of governments in the field of legislation and despite being harmful, have not been prohibited by actors in the field of legislation.

In the domestic criminology literature, at least two terms have been used for crimes committed by the power structure: State Crime and Governmental crime, both of which are referred to as the equivalent of the Latin term "State Crime". Although in appearance it can be considered as a broad concept of government, the two terms mentioned are considered compatible with each other However, the existence of objective and practical effects such as the possibility of separating these two concepts from similar concepts, differences in type and the nature of responding to the crimes committed against them and the difference in the reference for responding to these crimes, and determining the responsibility (including political, administrative and legal), etc., distinguishing between these two concepts and determining the limits and limits of these two concepts Makes it necessary. In the present article, with the analytical-descriptive method and the use of library resources, and with reference to internal and external crime texts in the field of State crimes, as well as by reviewing domestic legal documents, it has been concluded that the use of the term "State crime" is more correct for the Latin term, both in terms of scientific and practical works and in terms of compliance with domestic legal texts.

In broad terms, a labor child is referred to a person who is below the legal age and has to engage in an activity/job contrary to her or his desire. Despite the prohibitions on employing children, perhaps for reasons such as the extent of this phenomenon, the network and secret nature of abusers of labor children, the kingship relations between labor children and their abuses,… criminal prosecution of who crime against the children is minor and has not been able to prevent this unfortunate phenomenon as it should be. Thus, this issue necessitates a response beyond the mere criminal prosecution of child labor perpetrators. The present writing draws on a descriptive and analytical methodology and library sources to argue that tackling child labor requires a structural response that considers the responsibility, particularly criminal responsibility, of all persons, institutions, organizations, and administrational authorities somehow involved in this issue. Finally, It has been concluded that a criminal response, albeit a minimal one, can be formulated despite legal gaps in this domain to deal with the failures of legal and natural persons regarding the labor child phenomenon.

The concealment and justification of harmful actions and decisions of governments and statesmen in the shadow of their power on the one hand and the neglect of the modern criminal justice system and criminology to properly explain and recognize it as a crime on the other hand, is an issue that can not be Ignored in the field of criminology and criminal law. Based on the studies and findings of the article, it is impossible to explain and analyze government crime through current and modern criminological theories and approaches, but to show and explain the relationship between crime equation and normative power and then how to hide governments and denial. It is not possible for them to become super-criminals except through a critical attitude and beyond the dominance of current criminology and the foundation government. Therefore, the present article, based on critical theory and postmodern approach - as one of the contemporary critical approaches - to explain and analyze state crime in the field of criminology and criminal law and identify it as a crime and severe harm.

State crimes with the meaning of imposition of damage to the fundamental human rights by the government organization, were appeared with the establishment of the first governments. Moreover, despite precedence, importance and broadness, the various aspects and, especially, the criminological dimensions of them have not been so far scrutinized by the researchers of the criminal sciences. One of the solutions for overcoming this gap is reanalysis of the existing theories with the objective of enhancing their functional levels. Amongst the various approaches that can be utilized for analyzing the state crimes, the present study employs the theories related to the denial and justification of behavior, including neutralization techniques and Defense mechanisms as two supplementary perspectives thereby to elucidate the state crimes based on a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the present study indicate that the governments avoid accepting their crimes through resorting to a multistage process. It begins with the use of a set of denial methods as outlined in the theory of neutralization techniques (crime, loss, victim and liability), advances towards justification methods (reprimanding of the others and resorting to the superior values) and is completed with the justificatory means stemming from Defense mechanisms. This way, in the first step, the state crime’s perpetration is originally denied by the government. In the second stage, the imposed losses and the victims are overlooked

the evolution of the political offence in three era of the political life of Iranian community are recognizable. On top the constitutional Revolution coincided with the golden age of leniency to political criminals in the west law, still in Iran subject to political offence is not known. In the first Period of the second Pahlavi regime and at a time when Europe took the Final step to retake granted leniency to political offenders, in the reverse movement in Iran, the first step for the recognition of political offence and criminals was taken.
The second Period of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the contemporary era of European legal system on the outset of the transition to the final stage of the evolution of the concept of political offence and be doubtful about the district between political and non-political offences, while the political offence in Iran was more significant than any other Period. And Finally, after the victory of Islamic Revolution, Futile efforts to Provide political offence regulations relating to Iran's existing criminal law system, at some point in the history was carried out- and continue to be- western law has essentially passed the distinction between political offence and general offence

The evolution of political offence is recognizable in three era of the political life of Iranian community In the era of constitutionalism Revolution in Iran coincided with the golden age of leniency to political offenders in western law, there was not yet political offence. In the first Period of the second Pahlavi regime and when Europe took the Final step to withdraw granted leniency to political offenders, in a reverse movement in Iran, the first step for the recognition of political offence was taken. The second Period of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, coincides the era which European legal systems are going to take a transition to the final stage of evolution in the concept of political offence which distinguishing between political and non-political offences, while the political offence in Iran in that era was more significant than any other Period. And Finally, after the victory of Islamic Revolution, efforts were made to Provide political offence regulations in Iran's current criminal law – which leads to ratification of Political Offence Act 1395 - and this is while western law has essentially passed the distinction between political offence and general offence.