Criminal Law
Mehrdad Rahnavard Vaqef; Seyed Doraid Mousavi Mojab; mohammad farajiha
Abstract
Prison is a setting where convicts still act logically in a setting full of power relations; hence, it cannot be said that prisoners commit the violence for enjoy the violence. Prison violence adheres to logic's rules perfectly. But how can violence be described within the framework of logical and rational ...
Read More
Prison is a setting where convicts still act logically in a setting full of power relations; hence, it cannot be said that prisoners commit the violence for enjoy the violence. Prison violence adheres to logic's rules perfectly. But how can violence be described within the framework of logical and rational behavior? The culture of prisons may contain the resolution to this query. The boundary between rational and irrational conduct is drawn by prison culture. The main questions of the article are, what’s the role of culture in regulating violence in prisons and how does culture influence escalation of violence? These are the questions the current article seeks to answer to them. To answer the questions of the article, qualitative methods and specifically in-depth interviews with 15 prisoners of three prisons in one of the northern provinces of the country (Iran) have been used. The findings of the research show that the cultural assumptions reproduced in the prison culture, as a whole, lead to the formation of the mentality of seeking immunity through resorting to violence. Prisoners develop the cultural understanding that they have to resort to violence in order not to be victimized inside the prison. Prisoners who are known as hard (tough) prisoners are considered to be prisoners who show the strongest reaction to the slightest disrespect, and if they are assaulted, they not only resist well, but also they will definitely take revenge for the assault. The mentioned prisoners, see every dispute as a vital battle to determine the winner, and from their view point, the outcome of this battle has a great impact on whether or not they will be injured in the future. Also, in any quarrel, the hard prisoner considers resorting to violence as the first option to resolve the conflict
Criminal Law
sana kazempour; mohammad farajiha
Abstract
Sentencing studies indicate that female offenders typically receive less severe punishments than males and that the criminal justice system treats women more leniently than men. The current study, through theories such as paternalism (and its more recent versions) and evil woman theory, seeks to answer ...
Read More
Sentencing studies indicate that female offenders typically receive less severe punishments than males and that the criminal justice system treats women more leniently than men. The current study, through theories such as paternalism (and its more recent versions) and evil woman theory, seeks to answer how gender as an extralegal factor affects the process of sentencing in drug offences and whether there is a difference in the effectiveness of theories depending on the social structure of the two societies, Iran and the United States.In this study, qualitative research methods have been used. The content of documents, including cases of drug offences conviction (60 samples) between 2010 and 2020, and criminal justice officials’ discourse have been analyzed. In-depth interviews with judicial activists and drug lawyers (24 cases) were also used to understand the factors that encourage judges to impose lenient or severe punishments on women.The findings of this study show that paternalistic attitudes toward women in Iranian society, Childcare, the social costs of punishing mothers, and the subordination of the partner are the main factors that reduce the likelihood of conviction of harsh sentences, such as the death penalty for women in Iran. On the other hand, criminal records in drug offences, high quantity of drugs, or illegal relationships are factors that lead to violations of gender norms and deprivation of women of leniency approach in the criminal justice system about drug offences.
Criminal Law
Ali Azizi; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
Problem-Solving Courts with a specialized and independent structure were established in some countries with common law legal system to use the authority of courts to address the underlying problems of offenders and victims, the structural problems of the justice system, and the social problems of communities ...
Read More
Problem-Solving Courts with a specialized and independent structure were established in some countries with common law legal system to use the authority of courts to address the underlying problems of offenders and victims, the structural problems of the justice system, and the social problems of communities and finally to reduce the recidivism rate. However, because they reach only a small proportion of litigants compared to the traditional courts, the idea of applying core principles of problem-solving courts to traditional courts was put forward. This article, with a qualitative method, first examines the necessity of problem-solving approach in judicial system and then analyses the opportunities and barriers to applying problem-solving principles and practices in traditional criminal courts of Iran. The findings of the research show that some principles like changing traditional attitudes and role orientations of judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and other justice system actors is the basis for adopting problem-solving approach in traditional criminal courts of Iran and it can hardly be transferred, but enhancing the direct interaction between judges and litigants is the most easiest. Moreover, resource constraints (lack of time, money, and staff) and educational and electronic systems limitations pose serious barriers in implementation of other principles and effectiveness of problem-solving approach. Tangible results show that the application of these principles and indicators can help increase the quality and effectiveness of the criminal justice procedure and reduce its non-therapeutic consequences.
Criminal Law
Ali Azizi; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
AbstractAfter various approaches dealing with the crimes, some countries in common law legal system have adopted a therapeutic-judicial approach and established courts called "problem-Solving courts". The first model of these courts was Miami-Dade County Drug Treatment Court in 1989 which with a therapeutic-judicial ...
Read More
AbstractAfter various approaches dealing with the crimes, some countries in common law legal system have adopted a therapeutic-judicial approach and established courts called "problem-Solving courts". The first model of these courts was Miami-Dade County Drug Treatment Court in 1989 which with a therapeutic-judicial approach was trying to address the offenders' underlying problems with addiction or substance abuse issues. The idea of adopting this model in the criminal justice and health care systems led to planning and implementing a pilot project in Iran named "Iranian Drug Treatment Court" jointly by the Judiciary and the State Welfare Organization in 2017. This article with emphasis on Tehran Drug Treatment Court seeks to evaluate and analyze the process of "planning" and "implementing" of this model in Iran by using a "descriptive-analytical" method and reviewing all documents written for this project as well as other related regulations. The results of the research show that the common law model of drug treatment courts has not been correctly adopted, and problem solving principles and their legal capacities in Iran have been somehow neglected. Meanwhile, the project has not been completely implemented in accordance with the criteria and indicators specified in its relevant documents.
Mohammad Jafar Habibzade; Mohsen Sharifi; Mohammad Isaei tafreshi; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
For reasons including inability to impose some punishments,violating the principles of being personal punishments, not realization of punishment goal, specificity principle, constraints on procedures and most importantly, lack of guilt evidences, in negation, as well as arguments ...
Read More
For reasons including inability to impose some punishments,violating the principles of being personal punishments, not realization of punishment goal, specificity principle, constraints on procedures and most importantly, lack of guilt evidences, in negation, as well as arguments such as justice and criminology fact, difficulty of discovering the true culprit, scrutiny of the members and stakeholders in selection of managers, reduction of punishments for freedom hampering or injury of managers and finally compensation for damages inflicted on victims in a favorite manner have been expressed in proving criminal liability of the legal entities. Counterpoint approaches impact on the legal systems was so that until the twentieth century, the legal entities' liability was put in doubt as a principle. But since the second half this century following the legal entities activity scope, especially the companies, and rise of crimes against environment, organized crimes, specifically transnational crimes, crime in the field of transportation and industry in general caused the leading countries as Canada, England, United States,Netherlands and the Europe Council to accept and regulate the criminal liability of the legal entities as a must, despite of criminal law shortcomings, through relying on theories such as vicarious liability, secondary character, employers and superiors' responsibility, collective guilt and criminal liability of the legal persons. Alnahayah the movement for criminal liability of the legal entities, made Iran to join the system; so that inability for in the first step cyber crimes 2009 in particular, and in the second step for the Islamic penal law, in general were accepted. Scrutiny in transformation of the Iranian law in this regard, specifically in the above mentioned bill has been the effort of the present paper.
Mohammad Farahiha
