· Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy· pp. 1-19· 0 citations
Abstract
Iran’s legislative criminal policy regarding damages resulting from genetic actions has, over the past two decades, required reconsideration and modernization under the influence of rapid advances in the biological sciences. In Iran, existing regulations are mainly found within medical laws, bioethical guidelines, and certain scattered criminal provisions. However, a coherent and comprehensive system for prevention, liability determination, and criminal response to genetic harm has yet to be established. This research, adopting a descriptive analytical approach and a comparative study of French law, seeks to analyze the legislative frameworks of both systems and assess their effectiveness in addressing risks arising from genomic interventions. In French law, through the enactment of the Bioethics Law and its periodic revisions, the scope of criminal and civil liability in genetic matters has been more precisely defined. Genomic interventions, prohibited manipulations, protection of human dignity, and related criminal sanctions are explicitly regulated. Comparative analysis shows that Iran’s criminal policy largely rests on general legal principles and broad criminal norms. Consequently, it faces significant gaps in coping with emerging technologies such as genome editing, advanced IVF, or the storage and dissemination of genetic data. The findings indicate that for Iran to establish an effective criminal policy framework, it must move toward enacting a comprehensive bioethics law, clearly delineate the responsibilities of researchers and medical institutions, criminalize specific high risk genetic behaviors, and create a specialized supervisory system. Such measures would safeguard citizens’ dignity and health while enabling the legitimate development of genetic technologies.
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic confronted legal systems and criminal policy frameworks worldwide with profound challenges concerning the protection of public health, the preservation of social order, and the determination of the reciprocal responsibilities between the state and citizens. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, responses to this crisis were primarily implemented through a set of fragmented regulations, traditional criminalization approaches, and emergency executive measures that lacked legislative coherence and a unified theoretical foundation. The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical method based on documentary and library sources, provides a comprehensive examination of Iran’s criminal policy toward threats arising from epidemic diseases, with particular emphasis on COVID-19. The findings indicate that despite the existence of considerable jurisprudential, legal, and institutional capacities, Iran’s criminal policy in this field has faced multiple challenges, including ambiguity in the legal foundations for restricting individual freedoms, difficulties in proving causation in the transmission of contagious diseases, weaknesses in establishing criminal intent (mens rea), disproportionality of sanctions, overlapping institutional jurisdictions, and the absence of a comprehensive epidemic diseases law. At the same time, the experience of the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates a gradual shift in Iran’s criminal policy away from excessive criminalization toward the adoption of hybrid preventive mechanisms, participatory governance policies, non-custodial sanctions, and compensatory state responsibility. The study concludes that enhancing the effectiveness of criminal policy in confronting biosecurity threats requires a fundamental reconsideration of legislative approaches, the enactment of a comprehensive communicable diseases law grounded in the principles of necessity and proportionality, strengthened inter-institutional coordination, the development of rule-based executive policies, increased social participation, the establishment of coherent judicial practice, and the protection of fundamental rights alongside the safeguarding of public health.
Financial crimes committed by public officials, including embezzlement, bribery, abuse of official position, and misappropriation of public property, constitute some of the most serious challenges facing contemporary legal systems, as they cause severe damage to administrative integrity, public trust, and the legitimacy of governments. Effective control of such crimes requires the adoption of an efficient criminal policy operating in both legislative and judicial dimensions. The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach, examines the legislative–judicial criminal policies of Iran and Afghanistan in dealing with financial crimes committed by public officials and analyzes the existing challenges and deficiencies in both legal systems. The findings indicate that both countries apply a form of differentiated criminal policy in addressing financial crimes of public officials, manifested in measures such as the establishment of specialized judicial bodies, the aggravation of penalties, and the application of special procedural rules. However, Iran’s legislative criminal policy is affected by phenomena such as fragmentation of laws, over-criminalization, and the predominance of a punitive-oriented approach, which has led to reduced effectiveness of penal responses and neglect of preventive measures. In contrast, Afghanistan’s legislative criminal policy, despite efforts to achieve normative coherence through the Penal Code and specific anti-corruption statutes, suffers from limited practical effectiveness due to political instability, institutional weakness, and governmental immunity in certain domains. At the judicial level, both systems face common challenges, including weak institutional coordination, prolonged judicial proceedings, and susceptibility to political and administrative pressures; nevertheless, in Afghanistan these challenges are exacerbated by the lack of judicial expertise and the instability of judicial structures. The conclusion of the study demonstrates that mere intensification of penalties cannot constitute an effective solution to financial crimes committed by public officials, and that an optimal criminal policy requires an integrated approach grounded in prevention, transparency, judicial independence, and genuine protection of whistleblowers.
Samiullah Yosufzad, M. Esmaeili, Abbas Tadayyon· Journal of Historical Resear...· 0 citations
Ideally, the regulation of medical malpractice should ensure patient protection while maintaining the professionalism of medical personnel through a balanced justice mechanism. However, in reality, the provisions of Article 440 of Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health remain oriented toward retributive punishment in the form of imprisonment and fines, without accommodating direct victim recovery, so that substantive justice has not been fully achieved. This study aims to analyze the elements of medical malpractice as a criminal offense within the Health Law and to examine it from the perspective of Islamic criminal law. This article is categorized as a qualitative library research, and the methodology used is normative legal study. The results of the study indicate that: First, medical malpractice under the Health Law requires the presence of gross negligence by medical personnel resulting in serious injury or death, with criminal sanctions differentiated based on the consequences. Second, Islamic criminal law views medical negligence as al-khatha’ or qatl al-khata’, with sanctions in the form of diyat, kafarat, and ta’zir, which emphasize victim recovery and the moral responsibility of the offender.
Hesnikmah Aulia Syifa Assyahra, Yayan Muhamad Royani, Enceng Arif Faizal· Jurisprudensi: Jurnal Ilmu S...· 0 citations
Advances in forensic genetic technology have made genetic data an important tool in modern law enforcement, particularly for identifying perpetrators and solving cold cases. In Indonesia, the use of genetic data has a normative basis in Indonesian National Police Chief Regulation No. 1 of 2024 on the National Criminal Information Center (Piknas), which classifies DNA data as part of criminal perpetrator profiles. However, the regulation remains general and administrative, providing limited provisions on DNA collection, use, privacy protection, and data destruction. This study analyzes the regulation of genetic data use in Indonesia by comparing it with the United States Department of Justice Interim Policy on Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching (2019). Using a normative juridical method with statutory and comparative approaches, the study finds that the DOJ policy provides more comprehensive safeguards, including case requirements, privacy protections, informed consent, restrictions on arrests based solely on genetic associations, and data destruction mechanisms. The study also examines the Draft Law on One Data Indonesia (RUU SDI), which provides general principles of data interoperability and security but does not specifically regulate forensic genetic data. Relevant provisions in Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health, Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024, Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection, Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Law No. 20 of 2025, and Law No. 1 of 2026 on Criminal Procedure are also considered. The study concludes that Indonesia needs a comprehensive regulatory framework for forensic genetics that incorporates safeguards inspired by the DOJ model while remaining consistent with the national data governance framework under the RUU SDI.
Stefanus Satrio Hadi Wibowo, Stephanie Irene, Julianty Arisandi Nasution et al.· Lentera Negeri· 0 citations
The principle of penal minimalism is a strategic doctrine in contemporary criminal policy, emphasizing the restriction of state criminal intervention and the use of criminal law as a last resort (ultima ratio). This study comparatively analyzes this principle within the Iranian legal system and international human rights instruments. Employing a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, data were collected through a review of library resources, domestic legislation, and international documents. The findings reveal a normative convergence between the Iranian legal system and international standards regarding the necessity of restricting criminal intervention, developing non-custodial measures, and emphasizing restorative justice. Recent Iranian legislative reforms, such as the Islamic Penal Code (2013) and the Law on Reduction of Punishment for Ta'zir Imprisonment (2020), reflect this progressive shift. However, practical implementation faces significant challenges, including penal inflation, a persistent carceral approach in special laws, weak infrastructural support for alternative punishments, and traditional judicial culture. Consequently, fully realizing penal minimalism in Iran necessitates targeted legislative reforms, the systematic expansion of non-custodial mechanisms, and a paradigm shift toward restorative justice.
Crimes against public morality are of particular significance due to their infringement upon both the material and immaterial aspects of human life. Accordingly, Iran’s criminal policy, following Islamic criminal policy at the levels of theory and legislation, has addressed such crimes with the utmost severity and has prescribed heavy punishments for them. However, at the level of implementation, the approach of both criminal policies in dealing with these crimes—during prosecution, investigation, proof, and enforcement of punishment—stands in contrast to the strictness of the policy at the evidentiary and substantiation stage. In the adjudication process, a policy of concealment of the offense (crime-covering) is recommended and favored. Consequently, a category of offenses has been criminalized under the title of crimes against public morality. In Iranian law, crimes against public morality are divided into two categories: hudūd crimes against public morality, for which specific punishments are prescribed under Islamic law, and taʿzīr crimes against public morality. Taʿzīr crimes against public morality are, in fact, criminal behaviors occurring in the context of unlawful sexual relations that do not fall within the scope of hudūd punishments. This study was conducted using a descriptive–analytical method, and the findings indicate that, with respect to crimes against public morality, an examination of the relevant legal provisions in Iranian legislation and judicial practice reveals that the legislature’s general policy—following Islamic teachings—emphasizes concealment of the offense and the use of institutions such as enjoining good and forbidding wrong, as well as crime prevention. At the same time, in its legislative criminal policy, it has adopted a punitive and repressive approach, which is not fully aligned with the judicial criminal policy that tends toward leniency and forbearance through the application of sentence mitigation. As a result, Iran’s criminal policy in combating crimes against public morality requires review and reform from various perspectives. Judicial practice in punishing crimes against public morality generally follows and is subordinate to the legislative criminal policy and the Islamic Penal Code enacted in 2013, except in certain cases where interpretations and opinions issued by judges and the General Department of the Judiciary do not conform to the prevailing criminal policy. Nevertheless, in determining which of these two approaches or policies should prevail in the issuance of judgments, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime are decisive, and the determination rests with the judge. Accordingly, the legislator has, in various provisions of the Penal Code, clarified the punishments for crimes against public morality and enumerated all conditions for their realization so that judges do not encounter difficulties in legal inference and so that the full rights of victims in this regard are duly safeguarded.
M. Ahmadi, Ali Saffary, Seyed Mansor Mirsaeedi et al.· Comparative Studies in Juris...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
