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

The principle of the legality prosecution of all crimes by the public prosecutor's office has been modified and supplemented with the principle of necessity of criminal prosecution, in such a way that today in the framework of the criminal procedure regulations of the legal system, the latter principle cannot be found.. Article 40 of the Criminal Procedure Law France stipulates that the prosecutor receives complaints and reports of crimes and evaluates their follow-up and prosecution, and immediately in the next regulations, alternatives to criminal prosecution and the rules governing them are discussed. The four alternatives to criminal prosecution ( simple case filing, plea bargaining, judicial agreement, and criminal compromise) in the French criminal procedure and the judicial procedure of this country have faced many ups and downs to the extent that the legislator in recent years tends to eliminate some of them and strengthening and making some others more efficient.

Corporate crime as a new form of white-collar crime, has today become one of the challenges of the world's criminal justice systems. Therefore, consensual justice is a new criminal policy that is introduced by some legal systems for such crimes. In this article, with a descriptive-analytical method, we seek to find the answer to the question that in the corporate crimes, as long as the case has not been removed from the pre-trial process, to what extent consensual mechanisms have been recognized in the criminal justice system of Iran and the United States of America? The adopted model of each legal system in the matter of criminal prosecution is a decisive criterion that makes the answer to the question easier. Based on the research findings, in the legal system of the United States, principle of appropriateness of the criminal prosecution has been accepted as a rule, and this principle has also been emphasized under the document of the "principles of federal prosecution of business organization", and thus, in this regard, several consensual institution have been set in this law toward to the majority of corporate crimes. In Iran, based on principle of the necessity of criminal prosecution, some consensual institutions in the form of Alternatives to Criminal Prosecution have been accepted by the legislator in a narrow and limited way within the framework of the Criminal Procedure Law, which is necessary to solve the existing judicial and legal gaps in this regard according the criminal justice system of advanced countries.

Accusation is one of the well-known approaches in the field of criminal law, which was first introduced in the United States and then has found a special place in the legal system. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the role of the charge transaction in the criminal law of Iran and the United States and its effect on adjudication, which is also pursued from a jurisprudential perspective.

The method of this study is descriptive-analytical and citing articles, books and related documents in the field of criminal and judicial law.

Proponents of the deal see the charge as a way to prosecute and reduce crime, while opponents see the consequences, including coercion, conviction of innocents, and lack of guarantees from offenders.

 

The present study has been written while preserving the rights of authors and observing the principles of writing ethics.

The lack of comprehensive laws in this area in the United States has led to challenges such as the conviction of innocents. But in the Iranian penal system, the existence of restorative justice capacities is a good opportunity to recognize the charge. Therefore, the prediction of this institution in the Iranian penal system, in addition to reducing the volume of cases and court costs, causes embarrassment to the defendant.

Charges trading can be considered one of the compromise-based methods in criminal cases. This approach, which follows from the Commonwealth legal system, deals with the accused and the prosecution on the subject of the charge, and eventually reaches a certain structure and agreement. This approach has been taken into consideration by legal systems to address issues such as speeding up the process, reducing costs, and preventing further harm. Economic crimes also require a rigorous criminal approach, given the dangerous nature of the behavior, the pervasive consequences at the community level and the characteristics of the perpetrator. What is visible in most legal systems in the world regarding economic crimes is the subject of property restitution. This has made the accusation trade a very important place in the face of economic crimes in countries such as the US, France and Japan. Today, such a facility is not available in the Iranian legal system, but due to the crisis stemming from the slow pace of litigation and the growing volume of economic cases, it seems that processing and measuring its effectiveness against economic crimes can lead to appropriate decision-making in dealing with these crimes. In this study, we seek to address the question of whether the transaction of a criminal charge in the criminal process is a question of whether there is a substantive possibility of using a criminal transaction in economic crimes. And what would be the impact if it was used to deal with economic crime in the country.

Accusation is one of the manifestations of criminal law contracting, on the basis of which the accused and the prosecutor agree that the accused should accept the accusation and cooperate with the criminal justice system in exchange for benefits such as change of type. This research, which follows a descriptive-analytical method, examines the feasibility of implementing a charge transaction in Iran. Existence of restorative justice institutions, justification based on measures of justice and expediency, possibility of criminal deviation in the process of handling charges leading to ta'zir punishments, etc. are examples of the grounds for accepting this institution in criminal law. The instructions of the head of the judiciary and flexibility in criminal and judicial policies, legitimacy and enhancement of the criminal justice system and the use of constructive criminological consequences are some of the grounds for accepting this institution in our country. This study has found that due to the existence of links with the prosecution institution in our country's criminal justice system, it is possible to predict this criminal institution in the future developments of Iran's criminal procedure.

One of the institutions which is used against the convicts in the countries with the legal system of common law and sometimes in countries with written law is plea bargaining. It means that the negotiation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to change in charges or to drop some charges. This institution took place firstly in the United States and then spread to other countries and the legal systems. After the establishment of the international criminal court (ICC), these tribunals started to use this system, as the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia is the first tribunal which has exercised this system to resolve some cases and successively, other international criminal tribunals welcomed (accepted) it. Lastly, it has been implicitly implied by the international criminal court (ICC) in its statute. With the respect to the acceptance of this system in the international criminal tribunal specially for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, special panels for East Timor and the international criminal court, meanwhile studying the judiciary procedure and the available international documents, it will be surveyed the effects and provisions for using this system to explore and prove the committed crimes.

International criminal tribunals which have jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are facing with many restrictions, including time and budgetary restrictions. Consequently, to speed up case processing, they have recently adopted the methods that were traditionally used by national jurisdictions. Among these methods are guilty plea and plea bargaining. Therefore, with the adoption of the Rule 62-3 of the Procedure and Evidence Rules in December 2001, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia recognized the institution of plea bargaining.
Since the restorative justice discourse has become the common discourse in the criminal justice, in this article besides defining and identifying the institution of plea bargaining, the effects of restorative justice on this institution will be examined in light of some cases of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Committing crimes as acting violate public order, cause public response in all societies and as soon as its detection, prosecutor as a representative of the public interest starts to prosecute the accused. In the meantime sometimes in criminal procedure of different countries, for protect some interests such as prevention of inflation of criminal cases, prevention of damages from prison to the perpetrators of minor crimes, satisfaction of victims, allocation resources of the criminal justice system to the serious crimes and Professional perpetrators and ..., create institutions that generate the discretion for prosecutor in the criminal prosecution. In common law, plea bargaining is a clear example of this expediency.The legislative history of our country indicates that criminal legislators exhibit tendency to respect interest in criminal procedure with providing suspension of prosecution. This approach in the new Code of Criminal Procedure Act, adopted in 2014with providing institutions like closing the case and suspension of prosecution is strengthened. Although, these institutions are differences to AngloAmerican plea bargaining, in some ways, as the purpose and effect have similarities.