Raziyeh sabzehali; Mahmood Ashrafy; Masoud Heidari
Abstract
Since the formation of communities, there have been different reactions to the phenomenon of crime. In the past, in the process of defining the punishment, offender’s character was not taken into consideration but only the crime and its consequences. By positivism school, the offender’s character, ...
Read More
Since the formation of communities, there have been different reactions to the phenomenon of crime. In the past, in the process of defining the punishment, offender’s character was not taken into consideration but only the crime and its consequences. By positivism school, the offender’s character, “this newly emerged in criminal law”, was taken into consideration. Since then, criminal justice was realized not only according to the crime but also with respect to the offender’s character and understanding the circumstances which led to the commission of a criminal act. Since early twentieth century, it was felt the necessity of filing character dossier alongside with the criminal case in order to adopt a response proportional to the offender’s character to achieve refinement and treatment goals and to plan effectively the prevention and recidivism programs. Character dossier which is necessary to reform criminals is a record containing the comments by specialists in psychology, psychiatrist, psychologist and social workers about the criminal’s character in order to be used by the authorities to adjust the punishment to offender’s character. In Criminal Procedure Law 2013, Articles 203 and 286 predicts explicitly the character dossier filed against adults and also children. Obviously, according to changes in the Islamic Penal Code in 2013, some new proposed mechanisms including alternatives to imprisonment, probation, suspension of punishment, postponed sentencing, exemption from punishment all of which require appropriate response to the offender’s character, are not applicable without filing character dossier.
mahmood ashrafy; abas zeraat
Abstract
The contradictoriness is one of the fundamental principles in any proceedings. However, the concept of this principle in the criminal proceedings which has a fundamental difference with civil procedure especially because of existence of the preliminary investigation and the possibility of taking decisions ...
Read More
The contradictoriness is one of the fundamental principles in any proceedings. However, the concept of this principle in the criminal proceedings which has a fundamental difference with civil procedure especially because of existence of the preliminary investigation and the possibility of taking decisions without listening to statements and reasons of criminal claim parties, also the limits of implementation of this principle are not clear. So it is necessary to considering how to apply this principle, particularly in relation to the Criminal Procedure Act 1392, which seeks to further the adversarial criminal process such as a civil proceeding. contradictoriness in criminal procedure means that no decision against one of the public claim in any stages of the proceedings (prosecution, investigation and trial) should be made just after hearing testimony and considering evidences of public claim parties (accused and prosecutor). This principle is not explicitly mentioned by Criminal Procedure Act 1392 but the contradictoriness implicitly is accepted and the most important examples of implementation of this principle in this Act such as adversarial processing in the preliminary investigation stage in forgivable crimes and in the trial stage in the court, accessing to lawyer, prohibition of obtaining any defense bill, new document and evidence pursuant of announcement of termination of proceedings has been mentioned. However with regards to the unequal status of public claim’s parties and international documents emphasis on improving accused's status through using human rights instructions including applying of the principle of contradictoriness in the criminal procedure so here we will mention examples in the Criminal Procedure Act 2013 in violation of contradictoriness against accused.
