Today the penal intervention in family domain is becoming common in spite of some contradictory views. The advocates believe that the government's to Intervention must be controlled, and penalties should be used as the last resort Penal intervention, taken from CRIMINALIZATION BASIS, not only confines citizen’ s freedom but also it is contrary to the principles so its implementation needs to be justified. In this regard, the four principles including making harm, building legal patriarchy, moralism and perfectionisicm, all which already exist in CRIMINALIZATION BASIS, have been raised to justify CRIMINALIZATION. Although, it should be pointed that the principle “ making harm” has the most impact on family CRIMINALIZATION laws rather than other above principles. This paper tries to analyze the instances of Penal intervention in family domain using the descriptive and analytical method, while expressing the principles of CRIMINALIZATION. Hence, after expressing an introduction to the necessity penal intervention the principles, as well as relevant examples, will be mentioned accordingly.

The offence of taking more than one governmental job is a crime against the state. In analyzing the jurisprudence BASIS, there is no direct forbiddance, but in spite of the general rule of EBAHA (permissible), it could be considered criminal, as “Tazir”, because of its harm on public and treasury regarding to the rule of no harm (La- Zarar). Also, in customary criminal law, with respect to the last resort principle (Ultima Ratio), its CRIMINALIZATION is justified based on the negative effects on public services, conflict of interests, corruption and undu influence. This criminal intervention results in protection of social and economic freedoms, preventing corruption, the rights of governmental organization clients, creating recruiting justice and fighting against perpetrators to prevent from major offences. There are some ambiguities on procedural and substantial standards of this offence regarding non intervention of Islamic researches and criminal lawyers on forbidding and CRIMINALIZATION of that.

One of the most important principles of CRIMINALIZATION is BASIS or Principle of Loss (Damage) that in many legal systems is accepted as rational BASIS for limiting individual freedom and possibility for public power interference. In this paper we try to pay attention to analyzing the Loss in Rape in the most important CRIMINALIZATION theories such as the Loss, legal paternalism, and Legal Moralism. The Loss has physical, mental and social injuries that the victim is undergoing. Victim of Rape, her or his family, society and sexual violator are the target of this Loss in Islamic Interpretation. In this article, we try to set precedence for analyzing other crimes by considering the BASIS of CRIMINALIZATION while making clear one fundamental BASIS of CRIMINALIZATION and considering an instance on it.

with the adoption of Chapter 9 of the law on the implementation of general principles of principle 44 of the constitution, it seems the legislature has increasingly sought to support market participants and support new values and norms by using the tools of CRIMINALIZATION and influenced by dual principles of “, loss" and "legal morality". the present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the bases of criminologies carried out in the above law in a descriptive-analytical manner and it seeks to answer the question, what are the principles supported by the legislator in criminalizing acts and procedures that are harmful to competition in the law? the results indicate this protectional CRIMINALIZATION is based on various principles such as guaranteeing fair trial, protecting the commercial and professional reputation of persons and protecting their informational privacy. despite the legislator's primary effort in carrying out the supportive duty, this mission has been carried out in a vague and imperfect manner that, in addition to interfering with other similar criminal offenses, has the potential to violate the legislature and restrict the rights of individuals. in addition, in economic activities, the mere use of criminal means, if necessary, was not sufficient and will not be able to overcome structural problems such as lack of operational transparency in various economic sectors of the country singly.

A long with the development of international law in both criminal and environmental fields, the concept of ecosystem/ ecocide/ geoside was also invented and used by thinkers. This concept, which focuses on widespread, long-term, and severe environmental damage, has been the subject of much debate and theorizing in recent decades and has been limitedly recognized in the ICC Articles of association as an example of war crimes. In addition, the Statute of the Court has the ability to identify some instances of ecosystem as tools for crimes against humanity or genocide. However, for reasons such as the different nature of environmental crimes and the lack of full coverage of ecosystem cases by the statute, it is necessary for this concept to be recognized as an independent crime and internationally criminalized. This research by using descriptive-analytical method seeks to justify the reason for this criminology and to state the reasons for its necessity and to examine the challenges facing it and to provide solutions in this field. Today, it can be argued that conflicting ecosystems is one of the fundamental global values and one of the universal international obligations, the CRIMINALIZATION of which has become necessary and inevitable at the international level.

The importance and status of criminal law is such that the fundamental values and moral realities of any society and country can be considered, so much so that if one wants to live anywhere in the world, one must learn the norms protected in the criminal law of that land. Take it and take a step in that direction. Criminal law around the world is based on principles and rules that protect human rights. The method of drafting and legislating criminal laws has its own sensitivities and methods. The legislator of criminal law should be aware of the importance and high status of his work and try his best to pass the criminal law without any objections and problems in writing and criminalizing the law, and its implementation should be clear and unambiguous for law enforcement officials.

Criminal law and CRIMINALIZATION is the arena of confrontation between government authority and the rights and freedoms of citizens; various theories, assuming the legitimacy of the government's authority, as an accepted institution for establishing, implementing and dealing with the implementation of the law, defining the crime, determining the punishment and applying it, as well as the implementation of the criminal justice system, have been examined by the thinkers of this field in explaining and justifying CRIMINALIZATION and punishment. Paying attention to the emergence of problems that this attitude creates on the issue of CRIMINALIZATION and sentencing, as well as examining philosophical and criminological reflections outside the circle of accepting the existence of the state, considering the basic rights of citizens, it is necessary that with a view based on aversion to authority, with an anarchist approach and based on the negation of the concept of the state. In this way, in addition to what we find out, from this point of view, CRIMINALIZATION will not be possible, but it is necessary to take help from the school of restorative justice, which seems to lead nowhere in the space of government authority, but in the space of escaping from authority, it can open the way and be effective.

In an era of rapid information growth in cyberspace, the challenges of criminalizing and controlling the dissemination of misleading information have become prominent issues in ethics and criminal law. Opinions on criminalizing misleading information are divided into two groups: those supporting criminal intervention and those opposing it. This study examines the feasibility and justificatory frameworks for criminalizing misleading information in cyberspace. The main research question is how to justify the CRIMINALIZATION of misleading information dissemination from the perspective of criminal law philosophy. The article employs an inductive-deductive method, analyzing the criteria for justifying CRIMINALIZATION and applying them to the behavior of disseminating of misleading information to determine its feasibility and limits. Focusing on four key criteria of criminal law philosophy—Filtering, Balance of Reasons, Social Acceptance, and Harm Prevention—this research demonstrates how these criteria can provide a justified framework for criminally addressing the dangers of misleading information in cyberspace.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works