Law
Aref Esmailzadeh; Ali Saffary
Abstract
Male sexual victimization, despite its significant psychological, social and legal importance, is considered one of the less-researched topics in criminological and psychological literature. This study was conducted with the aim of identifying the complex dimensions of this phenomenon and analyzing its ...
Read More
Male sexual victimization, despite its significant psychological, social and legal importance, is considered one of the less-researched topics in criminological and psychological literature. This study was conducted with the aim of identifying the complex dimensions of this phenomenon and analyzing its psychological, social and legal consequences. The main question of the article is based on how the experience of sexual victimization affects men and what patterns of offending can be identified in this area. The research method is designed as mixed (qualitative–theoretical) and qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews with experts and victims, using the Delphi method and snowball sampling and analyzed with MAXQDA software.
The findings show that gender stereotypes and patriarchal norms make it difficult for men to report victimization, leading to social isolation, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorders in victims. Perpetrators have been classified into situational, dominant, vengeful, psychopathic and organized types and women have also been categorized in exploitative positions. The results emphasize the necessity of revising criminal policies and creating specialized support mechanisms for male victims and demonstrate that changing cultural attitudes and raising public awareness play a fundamental role in improving the situation of this vulnerable group.
Mohsen Borhani; Morteza Babaei
Abstract
As a principal component of the Islamic penal system, ta’azir constitutes a significant category of punishments designed to address a broad range of criminal offenses. Owing to this expansive scope, ta’azir occupies a position of notable importance within Islamic criminal jurisprudence. A ...
Read More
As a principal component of the Islamic penal system, ta’azir constitutes a significant category of punishments designed to address a broad range of criminal offenses. Owing to this expansive scope, ta’azir occupies a position of notable importance within Islamic criminal jurisprudence. A fundamental question in this regard concerns whether the implement of ta’azir by an Islamic government is a religious obligation or merely a discretionary authority. In other words, is the Islamic ruler under a binding duty to implement ta’azir penalties, or is he permitted, but not obligated, to do so?Through a critical analysis of the scriptural and juristic foundations underlying both the obligatory and discretionary approaches, this study concludes that the obligation-based view lacks sufficient evidentiary support, while the relevant shar’i (Islamic legal) proofs substantiate the discretionary nature of ta’azir. Accordingly, the legislator is not bound to criminalize all prohibited acts, and retains the authority to refrain from criminalization where considerations of public interest (maṣlaḥa) so warrant.
Farshad Changaie
Abstract
The interaction of the constituent elements of a crime denotes the reciprocal influence and interdependence between actus reus and mens rea, as well as the role each plays in the genesis of the other. The affirmation or denial of such interaction is fundamentally grounded in philosophical and epistemological ...
Read More
The interaction of the constituent elements of a crime denotes the reciprocal influence and interdependence between actus reus and mens rea, as well as the role each plays in the genesis of the other. The affirmation or denial of such interaction is fundamentally grounded in philosophical and epistemological premises; since, absent a thorough examination of these premises, and relying exclusively on legal theory, the issue of defining the interaction between the material and mental elements remains an intricate and ultimately unresolved question. Recognition of the mutual dependence of physical conduct on mental-psychological states necessitates an interpretative framework that underscores their reciprocal effect. Within this framework, a crime is ontologically constituted through the interaction of the material and mental elements, rather than through a mere conjunction of them. Such a conception of crime renders it indivisible and only capable of realization as a singular, unified phenomenon. the attribution of both actus reus and mens rea, the doctrine of superior causation over the direct perpetrator, complicity, and other associated legal concepts and institutions. In contrast, repudiation of the interdependence between physical acts and mental states leads to a doctrinal approach that insists on the separateness and autonomy of the material and mental elements, whereby the constituent elements of the crime are actualized independently and without necessary correlation. Under this approach, the crime is regarded as a composite aggregation of material and mental elements that are analytically separable and capable of being concurrently, yet distinctly, realized.
Fazlollah Forughi; Javad Riahi
Abstract
Sometimes, it is not difficult to determine the criminal sentence for multiple crimes that the offender commits before definite sentence. However, in most cases, there are such complex relationships between the committed crimes that it is not easy to determine which rule of multiplicity of crime should ...
Read More
Sometimes, it is not difficult to determine the criminal sentence for multiple crimes that the offender commits before definite sentence. However, in most cases, there are such complex relationships between the committed crimes that it is not easy to determine which rule of multiplicity of crime should be applied, leading to disagreements among legal scholars and judicial authorities. Such conditions sometimes arise from the inseparable connection of two or more committed crimes in practice, which is referred to in this article as "correlative crimes". In the system of multiplicity of crimes in Iranian criminal law, the position of correlative crimes, meaning crimes that are interdependent based on the reality of the judicial case - and not merely based on a mental conception - and according to what has actually occurred, the commission of one necessarily entails the other, is not clear, and this situation is primarily due to the silence of the law. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the position of correlative crimes in legal theories, criminal laws, and judicial practices and concludes that among the existing legal theories and judicial viewpoints, the theory of "sufficiency of punishment for the main crime" has more strength and solidity and can be considered as a suitable basis for fair criminal sentencing and new criminal policy-makings.
Law
abbas mohammadkhani; Amir Etemadi
Abstract
In the present article, which is written in a descriptive analytical method, the legal nature of the mistake in purpose in criminal law is investigated. The result of the present research is that a mistake in the goal will not lead to the realization of intentional crimes. Because the malice of a person ...
Read More
In the present article, which is written in a descriptive analytical method, the legal nature of the mistake in purpose in criminal law is investigated. The result of the present research is that a mistake in the goal will not lead to the realization of intentional crimes. Because the malice of a person belongs either to a specific subject or to many unspecified subjects, unlike the latter case where there are as many malice due to the malice belonging to indefinite subjects, the perpetrator's malice in the first case is limited and exclusive in one or several subjects, and therefore, With the "collision" or "non-collision" of the behavior with the object in question, its life ends, and if the behavior hits another object, there is no malice that can be used to consider the recent incident as intentional. Also, there are two types of mistakes in purpose. A state in which only the unintended subject is harmed, and a state in which, in addition to the intended subject, the unintended subject is also harmed. In the second case of a mistake in purpose, in which the perpetrator's behavior affects another subject in addition to the intended subject, it cannot be said that because he intended to commit a crime on one subject, if the perpetrator's behavior also affects any other subject, there is also a intention towards it; Which shows that the mistake in purpose is not intentional.
Law
Hasanali Moazenzadegan; Nasrin Mehra; Morteza Rasteh
Abstract
In-person testimony in court holds a prominent position among the means of proof in criminal proceedings. However, in light of the growing advancements in technology and ongoing digital transformation, the use of modern technological platforms for taking or receiving witness testimony has emerged as ...
Read More
In-person testimony in court holds a prominent position among the means of proof in criminal proceedings. However, in light of the growing advancements in technology and ongoing digital transformation, the use of modern technological platforms for taking or receiving witness testimony has emerged as a complex and controversial issue in criminal law. Despite the partial recognition of certain forms of remote testimony in existing criminal statutes, its legal validity as a primary evidentiary method in judicial proceedings remains uncertain. Accordingly, the present study—using a descriptive–analytical approach—aims to assess the evidentiary credibility and normative legitimacy of technologically enabled witness testimony. It explores the key advantages and challenges of this method and examines the legal and procedural conditions necessary for its admissibility. The findings of the research suggest that receiving testimony through digital means may offer benefits such as enhanced protection for witnesses in certain sensitive categories of offences, increased procedural efficiency, and reduced costs accompanied by improved data retention. Nonetheless, this method raises serious concerns, including the erosion of the role of in-court testimony, the potential infringement of the defendant’s right to a face-to-face and adversarial hearing, and limitations arising from courtroom logistics and technical infrastructure. Despite these concerns, the negative impacts may be mitigated by formulating coherent legal policies and strict adherence to procedural and technological safeguards. Ultimately, the study concludes that technologically facilitated testimony—where certain conditions, such as the impossibility of the witness’s physical attendance and the reliable attribution of the testimony to the witness, are satisfied—enjoys legal legitimacy and may be admitted as valid evidence in criminal proceedings.