Criminal law and Criminology Studies

An analysis of the foundations and manifestations of minimalism in Iranian law with a look at the law of the United States of America

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

adnan omrani far

A graduate of Tehran University

https://doi.org/10.22059/jqclcs.2025.396424.2005
Abstract
The penal minimalist approach, as one of the new developments in penal policies, emphasizes reducing the use of prison sentences and replacing them with corrective and preventive measures. This research aims to examine the foundations of the tendency towards penal minimalism in the Penal Reduction Law approved in 2020 and compare it with the American legal system. The research findings show that the tendency towards penal minimalistism is rooted in criminological perspectives such as social disability theories, criminal psychology, restorative and Marxist justice, which emphasize the ineffectiveness of prison in reforming criminals and increasing the cycle of crime. From the perspective of criminal law, the reformability of criminals, reducing economic costs, proportionality of punishment, protection of human rights, and the inefficiency of the prison system are among the foundations of this approach. In the American penal system, especially after the enactment of the Prisoner Recidivism Reduction Act (2018), minimalist policies have been pursued with a focus on reducing prison terms, improving prison conditions, implementing correctional and rehabilitation programs, and reducing socio-economic inequalities in the administration of justice. In comparison to the United States, Iranian penal reforms have mainly focused on reducing custodial sentences and developing leniency institutions. The present study, which was developed using a descriptive-analytical method, shows that penal minimalism can help reduce the prison population, reduce

Keywords

Criminal minimalism
reduction of prison sentences
penal policy
reform and rehabilitation
American legal system
Subjects
1.        Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J. (2001). Shame Management Through Reintegration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2.        Andvig, E., Koffeld Hamidane, S., Ausland & Karlsson, B. (2020). Inmatesperceptions and experiences of how they were prepared for release from a Norwegian open prison. Nordic Journal of Criminology, (22), 1-18.
3.        Brett, S., & Andrew C. Sparkes (2019). Disability, sport and physical activity. In: Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies (2nd edition). Routledge, London, 391-403.
4.        Cohen, M. A. (2005). The Costs of Crime and Justice. New York: Routledge.
5.        Duff, Antony (2018). Punishment, Communication and Community. Oxford University Press.
6.        Ferrell J. (2014). Cultural criminology. New York: Springer, 904-913.
7.        Fitzgerald M, McLennan G, Pawson J. (2016). Crime and society: readings in history and theory. USA: Routledge Publication.
8.        Hacking, I. (2010). ‘Degeneracy, criminal behavior, and looping’, in D. Wasserman & R. S. Wachbroit (eds), Genetics and Criminal Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press, 141–68
9.        Kratcoski, P. (2018). Correctional Counseling and Treatment. Kent, Ohio: The University of Michigan.
10.     Murphy, J. G (2002). Forgiveness and Resentment. In: Jeffrie G. Murphy and Jean Hampton, Forgiveness and Mercy, Cambridge University Press, 1990, Transferred Digital Printing
11.     Oswald-Beck, L. (2012). Fair Trial, Right to, International Protection. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
12.     Rodrigues McBride, M. (1993). Restoring Judicial Discretion. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 5(4), Forum on the Sentencing Guidelines Suggestions for the New Administration and the 103rd Congress, 219-220.
13.     Tonry, M. (2022). Doing Justice, Preventing Crime: The Effects of Sentencing and Punishment on Crime Rates. University of Chicago Press.
14.     Wincup E. (2017). Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. USA: Sage Publication.
15.     Yellen, D. (2005). Reforming the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' Misguided Approach to Real-Offense Sentencing. Stanford Law Review, 58(1), 267-275.

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us