Drinking alcohol is of offences which the holy Islamic law giver has laid down eighty slashes as legitimate hadd. This punishment was mentioned in Article 165 of Islamic Penal Code of Iran (1370) and totally it stated drinking and eating alcohol. After codifying the Islamic Penal Code of Iran in 1392, the legislature decided in art. 165 to depart from the title" liquor Hadd-punishment" to the title" liquor consumption". Therefore, the liquor consumption in any way such as drinking, injection and smoking causes the legitimate punishment. The common aspect of these two titles is what reason making the criminalization of liquor which creates the legitimate hadd which has been discussed in fiqhi books (Islamic jurisprudence books). The following paper has examined the different ways for the consumption of intoxicating and alcoholic drinks. For this reason, different attitudes are expressed for the way of the consumption of alcohol or liquor and the attitude of the legislature for proving the legitimate had in any way is criticized and evaluted.

Direct malice means that the perpetrator's goal in carrying out the behavior is to achieve a criminal result, unlike indirect malice, where the perpetrator does not want the result to be achieved, but is aware that the result will occur in the normal course of affairs. Direct malice is achieved by the perpetrator's choice, and any result that is chosen will fall under direct malice; even if it is not the perpetrator's final and ultimate goal. However, the legislator in Article 290 of the Islamic Penal Code has allocated paragraphs A and D to direct malice and paragraphs B and C to indirect malice. According to the present study, if the perpetrator wants to achieve a result, his malice is directly achieved, even if his hope of achieving the result is negligible; just as if the perpetrator chooses a specific method to achieve the result, but the said result occurs in another way, his malice will also be directly achieved. The legislator has also considered the intention of a specific individual or individuals to result in an intentional crime if the crime committed by the perpetrator is committed against the individuals he intends; Unlike when the perpetrator does not have a specific person or people in mind, blaming any person for the crime will result in the commission of an intentional crime.

Through amending the Islamic Penal Code in 2013, Article 234 of the Islamic Penal Code has been amended in relation to the punishment of the sodomy (which the Islamic Penal Code of 1370 punished his absolute death sentence). In the current law, the slaughter of the subject is conditional upon the condition of the guardian, the Onf or the non-applicable subject, and otherwise the Penalty is considered to be one hundred whistleblowers. This great change in punishment has led us to look at the legal foundations of this Article, in line with the provisions of the general rule of law, and the view that changing the punishment of this crime from severe to mild punishment would be a huge loss for society. Concerning the punishment of sodomy agents, we encounter two theories among the jurisprudents: the famous jurists believe that the punishment for sodomy in the case of anonymity and murder; in contrast to the unusual theory of jurisprudence that punish sodomy in the form of scapegoat, murder or furious, and if you do not know, he knows the creeps. In the Article, which is based on the analytical method and using the library resources, criticizing the legislator regarding the disproportion between the sodomy punishment and the definition of sodomy, has examined the opinions expressed in jurisprudence and documented their validity. We believe that the punishment for murder for the subject is more consistent with the narrative and jurisprudential accuracy.

Background and Aim: This Article tries to study the provisions of Article 381 of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 based on the study of criminal policy and to point to the discourse of participatory criminal policy and its effects in the execution and fall of the sentence of premeditated murder in the book of retribution. Materials and Methods: The research method in this paper is descriptive-analytical. Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations regarding the writing of texts as well as references to sources were observed. Findings: The findings of this study indicate that the prosecution of the offender and the punishment of retaliation in premeditated murder are subject to the request of the guardian, but in case of pardon and compromise with the offender, the responsibility in terms of public is left to official government authorities. Thus, in Iran's criminal policy, the guardians of the tail, along with the government, the treasury and the Supreme Leader, participate in responding to the criminal phenomenon of premeditated murder. Conclusion: In response to the violations of norms that occur in society, although in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, the determination and application of punishment is in the exclusive competence of the government. However, in determining, executing and dropping the punishment of retaliation, based on the teachings of jurisprudence, the victim and the guardian have been given an important role and position as the primary and secondary victims of premeditated murder. Islam can be mentioned.

Article 674 of the Islamic Penal Code prescribes a ruling concerning compensation for lost benefits, which, in Islamic jurisprudence, not only deviates from the widely accepted view but also lacks any authoritative "Fatwa" aligning with its provisions. Moreover, Article 674 conflicts with Article 672 of the same Code, raising uncertainty about the legislative rationale behind this provision. This descriptive-analytical study aims to examine this issue within the framework of jurisprudence and the principles of civil liability law to determine whether a reliable foundation for Article 674 of the Islamic Penal Code (IPC) can be identified to justify its existence or whether it requires revision. The study’s findings suggest that the closest Fatwa to the ruling in Article 674 IPC is attributed to the jurist Mohaqqiq Karaki; however, it is not fully aligned with it. Furthermore, the subject of the Article does not correspond to the rule of previous status or the "egg-shell skull" doctrine. Ultimately, the ruling in Article 674 IPC does not align with the goals of civil liability, the principle of compensating for damages, or the principle of deterrence. Consequently, the ruling in Article 674 IPC lacks any credible jurisprudential or legal foundation

On the one hand, Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code has stipulated: “ When a person commits the same crime leading to ḥ add(legal punishment) three times, and each time his legal punishment is executed upon him, his ḥ add on the fourth time is death” ; on the other hand, in the Shī ‘ a narrative collections, in a narration from Seventh Imam (A. S. ), known as “ Yū nus’ s Message” , it has been made clear that Imam has said: “ Those who commit major sins are killed in the third time. ” The content of this tradition, which forms a “ general rule” and a “ universal major” , contradicts the concept of the above-mentioned Article. In this paper, after studying the hadith and confirming its authenticity and validity, and also by matching the content of the tradition with the provisions of this Article, the author has consistently reviewed the criminal topics of Article 136. In the following, the prospective documents and the following alleged reasons for each of the criminal offenses listed in this Article are examined and evaluated with jurisprudential criteria. It is finally concluded that the application of the above-mentioned Article is without the jurisprudential justification and only the two topics of “ adultery” and “ robbery” are for specific reasons out of the general narrative of Yū nus and exemplified by Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code.

Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2012 has brought about a serious and effective development in the way of criminal response and appropriate treatment of crimes requiring punishment or retribution for minors under the age of eighteen.  According to the ruling provided in this Article: "In crimes that cause punishment or retribution, when adults under the age of eighteen years have committed the nature of the crime, or they do not understand the sanctity of it, or there is doubt about their development and intellectual perfection, as the case may be, with consideration according to their age, the punishments foreseen in this chapter will be sentenced."  However, considering that specific criteria have not been determined to determine the lack of understanding of the nature of the crime or its sanctity and the doubt in the development and perfection of the juvenile mind, it has caused numerous and challenging disagreements in the ruling jurisprudence, which can be caused by the decisions  And the different and contradictory opinions of forensic experts and judges dealing with such juvenile crimes and their mental tendencies are in the course of the proceedings.  Therefore, according to the mentioned challenges, it is suitable  to create a single judicial procedure and prevent the issuance of mixed and contradictory, and arbitrary judgments in this regard, a certain age as the age of criminal responsibility in such crimes is determined in line with international regulations with This type of crime should be dealt with by juveniles under the age of eighteen.

A madman is someone who does not have the power of reason and understanding and is emotionally disturbed. Aminor is also a person who has not reached the legal age of puberty. According to the new law in paragraph "T" of Article 158, the actions of parents and legal guardians and guardians of minors and insane persons are carried out to discipline or protect them, provided that the said actions are within the conventional and Shariah limits of discipline and protection. In terms of Shariah, discipline is permissible to the extent that it does not cause redness, blackness, or bruises, Otherwise, it will prove the debt. But since the smallest physical punishment, such as a slap, causes blushing, in this case, the punishment goes beyond the specified Shariah limits and causes the actions of the prisoners' parents, guardians, and guardians to be a crime. In this case, the court should determine the punishment for the charge of assaulting the parents, which is obvious, no court should punish the parents and legal guardians and the guardians of the minors and the insane for conventional and usual punishment such as slapping. Therefore, it is necessary to consider laws in this regard according to theoretical issues and executive approach.

The reduction of volume of crime or change of its kind in the step of sentencing by judges is one of methods to balance criminal justice responses with convicts’ specifications, the realities relate to convicts and crime victims that it has been entered to the criminal system by the connection between criminology and Penal Code. With regard criminological Criminal authorities of Iran in Article 38 of the Islamic Penal Code (1392) have known standards for reducing the volume of crime or change of its kind. Some of these orientations are rooted in theoretical criminology policy. These standards mostly taken victimological findings have been predicted. Sometimes crime occurs with effectiveness of behaviors and discourses and the situation of crime victims. Obviously, in such circumstances crime victims should be blamed and according to this reducing the volume of convicts’ punishments or creating moderation can play role in establishing criminal justice responses more realistic. Moreover, some of mitigating orientations of punishments conclude bases in clinical criminology. In the light of this branch, it is completely necessary to be criminal justice responses coincident with convicts’ individuals. Therefore, criminal justice systems can apply lightening mechanisms such as the mitigation of punishment for those convicts who have capacity of rehabilitation. Consequently, Article 38 of the Islamic Penal Code (1392) has stated the reduction of punishments from the perspective of victimology and rehabilitation.

Euthanasia is still a controversial issue worldwide. There are different and sometimes contradictory opinions about euthanasia and its practice. By exchange of ideas and opinions about this issue, some countries have explicitly accepted euthanasia and it has been legalized. Whereas, some other countries distinctly rejected euthanasia and in result it has been criminalized. Among countries there is a third group, with a passive or neutral position. In those countries, like Iran, the acceptance or rejection of euthanasia has been discussed among the law experts but there is no legislation to address the issue. This Article aims to evaluate euthanasia based on the Article 372 of Iran's Islamic Penal Code.