Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

A review of judicial powers in various schools for determining punishment

Research Paper | January 1, 2015

| Download 5

Atefeh Kousaripour, Mahmood Bavi, Siyavash Shjapourian

Key Words:

J. Bio. Env. Sci.6( 1), 599-605, January 2015


JBES 2015 [Generate Certificate]


The principles of securing justice and individualizing punishment can be likened to two sides of the same coin, mutually justifying the simultaneous existence of each other. With regard to determination of punishment, on the one hand, the principle of equality and consistency of punishment lacks the required efficiency in that it does not consider the specific personal and social circumstances of the criminal in individual cases, and this condition would justify the imposition of equality of punishment; and on the other hand, the principle of securing justice is itself the foundation stone of individualizing punishment. No doubt, legislation of fixed punishments by legislators resulting from their mistrust of judges, which itself results in equal/unequal treatment of criminals, would completely destroy any chances of individualizing punishment. However, by setting forth minimum and maximum punishments and recognizing the right of a judge to apply mitigating or aggravating circumstances, to suspend or delay a punishment, to pardon or apply conditional release, and to impose additional punishment, legislators have actually provided a judge with a certain degree of freedom to issue sentences in accordance with the criminal’s specific characteristics as well as the specific circumstances of the crime. In this regard, Islamic Code of Punishment has taken steps to individualize punishment via considering limits for penalties (Taazirat) where particular importance is given to a judge’s insight, and via recognizing repentance as a way of mitigating punishment.


Copyright © 2015
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

A review of judicial powers in various schools for determining punishment

Aliabadi A. 1989. Criminal Law. 2, 1st Ed, Ferdosi Publications.

Atrak H. 2008. Moral Utilitarianism, Views and Reviews Journal, Year 110, Nos. 1 & 2.

Beccaria C. 2006. Articles on Crimes and Punishments. translated by Ardebili M. 5, Mizan Publications, Tehran.

Delmas M and Ray M. 2002. Systems of Great Criminal Policy. Translated by Abraandabadi A. 1st Ed. Mizan Publications.

Goudarzibroujerdi M. 2005. Inflation of Criminal Laws in Iran with a view to Decriminalization, MS Theses, Tehran University, Department of Law and Political Sciences.

Mahmoodijanki F. 2009. Criminal System: Goals and Requirements. 1st Ed., Sharaffiran Publications.

Mohseni M. 1987. General Criminal Law. 1, 3rd Ed., Ganjdanesh Publications, Tehran.

Moin M. 1987. Persian Dictionary (Intermediate), Vol. 1, 6th Ed., Amirkabir Publications.

Nobahar R. 2010. Principle of Securing Jusice, Shahr Publications.

Pradel J. 2009. History of Criminal Views. Translated by Abrandabadi A., 4th Ed., Samt Publications, Tehran.

Pradel J. 2012. History of Criminal Views. Translated by Abrandabadi A., 6th Ed., Samt Publications, Tehran.

Rahmdel M. 2010. Proportionality of Crime and Punishment, 1st Ed. Samt Publications.

Saki M. 1972. An elementary Course in Criminal Law, 1st Ed., Dadgostar Publications, Tehran.

Shami M. 2013. Introduction to Criminalization and Decriminalization. 1st Ed., Jangal Publications, Tehran.