Public Law
Hamid Bahremand; Amirkia Ameri Sani; Azar Farahmand; Amirhosein Hajizadeh
Abstract
Legal policy-making that borrows problem-based and interdisciplinary approaches from public policy aims to solve problems in the legal system. Dispersed judicial decisions in courts are a problem in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s legal system that has not been considered in a problem-based manner, ...
Read More
Legal policy-making that borrows problem-based and interdisciplinary approaches from public policy aims to solve problems in the legal system. Dispersed judicial decisions in courts are a problem in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s legal system that has not been considered in a problem-based manner, and no attempts have been made to solve it effectively. There are various causes for dispersed judicial decisions, but ambiguous rules are the most important. This paper provides two suggestions to prevent ratifying vague rules that drive dispersed judicial decisions by applying a descriptive and analytical method using library resources. The first suggestion is to use explanatory notes within the Iranian legal system to enhance the understanding of legislator purposes and goals for making a particular law as a substitute for the unpublished detailed negotiations held by parliament representatives. The second suggestion, inspired by economic and policy labs, is to establish a “Judicial laboratory” for analyzing the judges’ inference from the draft of the law in a quasi-real environment, before ratification, to reduce the gap between lawmaking and implementation.
Criminal Law
Hamid Bahremand; Zahra Sakiani
Abstract
Behavioral economics is a branch of economics that seeks to modify the hypotheses of neoclassical economics using the findings of other sciences, especially psychology. This article examines from the perspective of behavioral economics what factors can be effective in criminals' decision to commit a ...
Read More
Behavioral economics is a branch of economics that seeks to modify the hypotheses of neoclassical economics using the findings of other sciences, especially psychology. This article examines from the perspective of behavioral economics what factors can be effective in criminals' decision to commit a crime. To this end, some cognitive biases and exploratory rules, each of which is somehow related to gathering information to commit a crime and assessing the certainty and severity of punishments are explained and their implications for policy-making are noted.Of course, it should be noted that many of the issues that will be addressed have not been specifically tested in the decisions of criminals, but they are discoveries and cognitive biases that exist in general and among many human beings. Given that the application of findings obtained in a context other than the commission of a crime may have results that are not directly applicable in the context of the commission of the crime, it seems that conducting empirical research to assess these cases in the decision to commit a crime in particular can increase the accuracy of these findings. As will be stated in the article, sometimes due to the existence of some biases and exploratory rules, it is not possible to believe in the economic analysis of criminal behavior that increasing the severity and certainty of punishments reduces crime and sometimes other factors are needed to increase the severity and certainty of the punishments should be considered. It seems that considering these cases can help to increase the effectiveness of policies against crimes and be useful in explaining cases where policies against crimes have not been effective or less effective.
Hamid Bahremand
Abstract
One of the characteristics of cybercrimes is that perpetrators because of the possibility of anonymity and by finding ways to commit crimes can commit several crimes against multiple victims at the same time. On one hand, some crimes are committed by using methods such as phishing, which encompasses ...
Read More
One of the characteristics of cybercrimes is that perpetrators because of the possibility of anonymity and by finding ways to commit crimes can commit several crimes against multiple victims at the same time. On one hand, some crimes are committed by using methods such as phishing, which encompasses a wide range of victims. On the other hand, according to their personality, the perpetrators of these crimes are familiar with the techniques of committing the crime and also are aware of the criminal laws and regulations, and that the commission of the crimes more than certain numbers has no effect on the amount of their punishment. This makes these rules, which are, as a rule, applicable to individuals whose multiple crimes are exceptions, is not effective for cybercriminals whose single offense is often the exception, and criminal responses do not prevent them from other crimes. The failure to impose penalties, such as deprivation of electronic public services, both as primary punishments and as additional penalties do not prevent these criminals from committing another crime again after sustaining the main penalty. The ambiguity in the regulation of the multiple crimes and unclear boundaries between actual and virtual concurrence of crimes and numerous criminal consequences has led to differences in the determination of appropriate penalties in judicial proceedings. This article, by using a library-based resources and a descriptive-analytical method, in addition to interpretive method seeks appropriate solutions for solving problems.
