CRIMINAL LAW RESEARCH
Year:2018 | Volume:6 | Issue:21 |Papers Count:7

Although the result of criminal behaviour against the person is often shown as some sort of physical injury, but in some cases, the committed behavior may cause the victim to fear and panic, fear that violence will be used against themself in the near future. In these situations, the victim without takes action against themself or another, because of the fear created, such as inflicting some harm, suffers some kind of psychological harm, so that it can be said that their psychical integrity is assaulted. In the English criminal system, this type of assault has a certain criminal title, But Iranian lawmaker do not pay attention to committing such conducts specifically, so the courts have to determineArsh. However, comparative study of the mentioned behaviors in the two Iranian and English criminal systems indicates the need to criminalize, and also to determine the appropriate Taeziripunishment for them, in particular.

Although the offender’s free will is often considered as an important part constituting the basis forcriminal liability, its concept is usually ambiguous and concise. That being so, sometimes other terms such as intent and consent are used mistakenly which has afflicted the status of free will in the general theory of crime and criminal liability with difficulty. In this article we, by referring to the legal sources and Islamic jurisprudence, have attempted to elucidate the concept of the free will in the sense of "freedom of choice", and distinguish it from other similar concepts. Unlike the dominant perceptions, the role of freewill and its decline are to be examined. The essence of freewill is an important issue that has not been attended enough in legal publications. However, the debate about the freewill and its role in human responsibility is as old as human life and it has been discussed due to its multiple dimensions, in various sciences, including philosophy, theology, psychology, ethics, and law.

In addition to some legal institutions such as legal and judicial exemptions, the penal substitution shall be taken into account as well. The penal substitution, in its general sense, is an attempt toward the individualization of punishment, avoidance of the violation of the right of avenger/s of blood, avoidance of undermining the religion, restriction of imprisonment, and fulfillment of the fair judicial justice. At the present time, the substitution of punishment in the field of Hudud punishments, Qisasand Ta’zirat is applicable. However, the fundamental question which is raised is whether the conditions applied for Qisas are the same as what are applied for Hodud and Ta’zirat or not? The substitution of Ta’zirat is divided into two groups: legal and judicial. While the legal substitution is extensively subject to the conditions mentioned in the Penal Code, the judicial one is basically subject to the judges’ better judgment. But, the substitution of Hudud, the same as the legal substitution, is subject to mentioned conditions in law and depends on the agreement of the Supreme leader or head of the judiciary. Regarding the Qisas punishment, there are two types of substitution: Mandatory or legal and personal or voluntary. When the execution of Qisas, religiously, is not possible or permissible, it is compulsorily substituted by the blood money.

The witness is remembered as the eyes and ears of the criminal justice system; the participation of witnesses makes it possible to discover the crime and ultimately bring security to the community. Therefore, the adoption of protectionist policies could be considered as a ground for the active participation of witnesses in the criminal process. Hence, in English law, a document has been allocated in order to appropriate rules of conduct for witnesses with the general rules called "the Witness Charter." In this document, more clearly than the Code of Criminal Procedure (1392) and the Code of Practice for the Protection of Witnesses and Informants (1394), in the first step, the protection of the physical and material integrity of the witnesses, the rules for training, the assignment of special officers and the compensation of all damage inflicted on witnesses have been foreseen. On the other hand, in both systems, the rules and standards of conduct allocated aimed at protecting the spiritual integrity of the witness and rewarding his position in the criminal process, as well as providing advisory services and timely information and a fair and just treatment with the witness. In addition, in the UK legal system, there is a differential and specific support in the witnessing of violent and organized crimes. The allocation of effective enforcements in order to facilitate the process of support for witnesses is one of the most important needs of the legal system of the two countries.

The mental element of intentional felonies which are in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has been mentioned under art.30 of the Rome Statute. Except those stipulated unintentional, as a general rule, this article is evenly applied to all crimes in the jurisdiction of the Court. This article cannot define material and mental of elements of the crimes transparently and clearly although it seeks to create a general rule for mental element of all crimes in the jurisdiction of the Court, and still, there are a lot of uncertainties on them. These uncertainties have challenged the interpretation and implementation of the mental element related issues in the Statute. Defining and separating primary and essential parts of a mental element within the art.30, this paper examines and discusses the relationship of these elements with the behavior, condition, and result of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The medical profession is a risky profession for it deals with life, health, and the human body. Needless to say that medical science has always been intertwined with probabilities and defects; it is like a double edged knife which can heal and also kill. The analysis of the existing juridical and legal relationship between the patient and the physician presents a serious challenge as a result of the effect of liability in the case of injury which might happen to a patient. Islamic jurists hold two ideas regarding the practice of a competent physician and a specialist whose operation had been authorized by the patient in accordance with medical and technical regulations but he injured the patient (without any fault). The majority of the Islamic jurists hold that the physician is responsible for the harm and s/he shall find a solution to satisfy the victim (for forgiveness). However, some have ruled out the responsibility of the physician. The Islamic Penal Code (1991) followed the first approach and provided that physician was fully responsible even if he was not negligent. However, in the Islamic Penal Code of 2013, the legislator followed the second approach and has adopted a moderate policy; according to the majority of legal systems, it has viewed the fault as the basis for the physician’s responsibility. Therefore, in the absence of the recklessness and negligence of the physician in science and practice, there is no responsibility. We, after reviewing the documentation of each of the two approaches and reflecting on their provisions, believe that the opinion of the majority of Islamic jurists does not hold the water.

Defendant's mobile inspection after his arrest is a lawful manner for inspection immediately after his arrest so that police can obtain the criminal evidence. In the recent years, this case has confronted with some critics which shed doubt on the goals which had created such permission. That being the case, diversity of views has become popular in the judicial system of the US. However, significant arguments were raised by the United States High Court in 2013 for the case of the Wurie. The arguments were about the prohibition of defendant’s mobile inspection after his arrest which broke the impasse and was so useful for the other courts. The arguments are to be examined in the present research.