Criminal Law
mehdi aghaee; nasrin mehra
Abstract
Country's chaos regarding car accidents, Justifies the necessity of growing attention and importance of preventive measures of these offences, and makes this issue known as a major concern. This also reveals the necessity of interactive (non-criminal) preventive measures with respect to traffic crimes ...
Read More
Country's chaos regarding car accidents, Justifies the necessity of growing attention and importance of preventive measures of these offences, and makes this issue known as a major concern. This also reveals the necessity of interactive (non-criminal) preventive measures with respect to traffic crimes and violations. Situational prevention or situation oriented, as the most moderate, possessing the most widespread measures, is considered as an effective non-criminal prevention pattern and based on the statistics given by official organizations, it has a tremendous impact on the reduction of crimes and violation in different countries. In proportion to scientific and technological developments, different situational preventive measures have been updated, and due to their consistency, they can be applied in traffic violations and offences. On one hand, the analysis of suggested measures in the framework of situational prevention and on the other hand, statutory criminal policy pathology and some other practical plans linked with this kind of prevention of the offences and traffic violations are the main purposes of this article. In the sphere of Iran's statutory criminal policy "The law of compulsory insurance for damages inflicted to third parties arising from an accident of vehicles" and "The law of adjudication of traffic violations are the most important legal sources that their analysis shows that most of the components and enforcement measures either have not been predicted or their enforcement process have not been codified even in the form of by-laws, or they are far from the situational technics and criteria over them. Unfortunately, the legislature has taken situational prevention aspects into consideration only in few cases of its statutory criminal policy, although this matter is significant: the practical potentials of situational prevention has been restricted to nominal and brief dimensions. Besides, the guarantee of situational prevention approach in the society needs systematization of the variety of adopted situational measures.
Criminal Law
HOJAT NAJARZADEH AHARI; Mohammad Ali Ardebili; Nasrin Mehra; Mohammadali Mahdavi
Abstract
The exchange of public interest with private interests is a brief definition of “corruption”, and its existence indicates the misfunction of the public institutions. Corruption is an anti - value phenomenon and is disruptive to the rule of law, so that prevention of it is an undeniable necessity ...
Read More
The exchange of public interest with private interests is a brief definition of “corruption”, and its existence indicates the misfunction of the public institutions. Corruption is an anti - value phenomenon and is disruptive to the rule of law, so that prevention of it is an undeniable necessity for governments. More than that the prevention of corruption directly relates to the legitimacy of each country’s political systems. Meanwhile monitoring the property of public officials is one of the tools of preventing and combating corruption in most countries. It is often impossible to detect and prosecute corruption offenses because of the hidden nature of these crimes. Yet the best solution for overcoming this problem is to focus on the property of the officials. In line with global developments and the desire to keep up with the means of fighting with corruption, laws have been passed in Iran to stand against corruption. The law of property monitoring of authorities, officials and agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran approved by The Nation’s Exigency Council in1394 is one of the results. The adoption of the Act itself is a step forward, but its effectiveness and usefulness must be measured in practice. From the surveying that have been carried out, it becomes apparent that the defects in the above law are noticed, including the fact that the mechanism for checking the property during the service has not been conceived, as the important discussion of the conflict of interest has not been mentioned and the law has not been sufficiently sanctioned. In short, the accepted standards of developed countries in combating against corruption are not included in the Iranian Law, and the need to resolve and correct the weaknesses of the law is strongly felt.
Nasrin Mehra; Mohammad Yekrangi; Abbas Moazzen
Abstract
Penal policy in the meaning of the combating crimes by means of punishment, like all other policies has some special patterns. This policy has three fields: criminalization, criminal liability and punishment and every field has its own models. Every countries select one model as a primary pattern and ...
Read More
Penal policy in the meaning of the combating crimes by means of punishment, like all other policies has some special patterns. This policy has three fields: criminalization, criminal liability and punishment and every field has its own models. Every countries select one model as a primary pattern and use some other patterns exceptionally. However, the important issue is consistency of policy. There is a strong relationship between selecting the pattern, in one hand, and situation which the provision is enacted, in the other hand. This paper, with the discourse analysis approach will scrutinize the post revolution criminal Acts to find out what was/is the primary model of sentencing in the Iranian criminal law and consider why the sentencing model is changed in the last Criminal law, i.e. Islamic Criminal Law 1392. Finally, it concludes that the most important sentencing model in the first three decades was voluntary sentencing model. Because the prominent approach was Fiqh approach and in the fourth decade the primary sentencing model is shifted to presumptive sentencing model.
Criminal Law
Nasrin Mehra; Gholamreza Gholipour
Abstract
In the dignity-oriented model of proceedings, the accused or suspected person enjoys some fundamental rights which cannot be taken away from him/her merely by him/her being arrested, accused or apprehended. One of these rights is the right to wear personal, normal, optional clothing; this shall be in ...
Read More
In the dignity-oriented model of proceedings, the accused or suspected person enjoys some fundamental rights which cannot be taken away from him/her merely by him/her being arrested, accused or apprehended. One of these rights is the right to wear personal, normal, optional clothing; this shall be in a manner which no entity or agency is authorized to deprive him/her of this right and coerce him/her to put on “criminal garb. This is so due to the fact that until is proven otherwise, the accused is assumed innocent and his/her outfit shall represent this state of guiltlessness. It means, the accused shall be treated under the aegis of the presumption of innocence not the presumption of criminality; ergo, the outfit of the accused plays a significant role in his/ her quality of defense, the judicial decision and the public judgment. Notwithstanding, in the proceedings of the current Iranian criminal justice system, the accused is forced to wear criminal clothes— something that leads into them and their relatives being subject to negative labelling and misjudgment. Apropos of the question “what is the legal base of the current practice”, the present study identified that not only the current practice is not in harmony with the national codes and the international standards, but also it is in conflict with the strategic principles of the criminal procedures, particularly human dignity, the presumption of innocence, procedural legality, equality of arms, impartiality and the protection of citizenship rights. In this regard, it is a particular desideratum that the present practice gets more aligned with the universal standards and the strategic principles.
Abdolvahid Zahedi; Nasrin Mehra
Abstract
Being guilty in criminal law is one aspect of criminal proceeding and being prosecuted and punished is another one. In fact, it is on the basis of procedural rules that crime is proved and the offender is sentenced and punished. What is of significant importance in proving the crime and culpability ...
Read More
Being guilty in criminal law is one aspect of criminal proceeding and being prosecuted and punished is another one. In fact, it is on the basis of procedural rules that crime is proved and the offender is sentenced and punished. What is of significant importance in proving the crime and culpability of the accused is 'burden of proof of the crime and the presented defenses' in criminal trial. The burden of proof is the answer to the question that which person or authority should prove his claim in criminal trial. What is discussed in here is not the existence of proof but the important is the responsibility and duty to prove it. Should the prosecution undertake the burden of proving his claim, in case of not succeeding in it, the defendant will be acquitted. Conversely, if it is the defendant who should bear the burden of proving his claim, in case of failure to provide adequate and appropriate proof, he will be sentenced. Obviously, the outcome of trial is in close connection with placing the burden of proof upon the defendant or the prosecution. The general rule in criminal prosecution puts the burden of proof of constituting elements of crime on the prosecution. Iranian Constitution considering this important matter has allocated its Article 37 to the 'presumption of innocence' which says: "Innocence is the basic principle. No person is considered legaly guilty, except in cases where his guilt is established in a competent court" and thus the defendant is exempt from proving his innocence. But in respect of the defenses including justifications and excuses, it's the defendant who claims existence of them during the commitment of crime. The question raised here is that in spite of the presumption of innocence, is the burden of proof of the existence of justifications and excuses on the defendant? or is it the duty of the prosecution, as the public authority of prosecution, to prove all elements of crime and absence of all impediments to prosecution and punishment? This question becomes even more important when the new approach of criminal law considering crimes such as economical crimes and security crimes, moves toward limiting the presumption of innocence and wastage of suspected persons rights.
