MITIGATION of PUNISHMENT is one of the effective tools of criminal policy in implementing the individualization principle of PUNISHMENT، more effectiveness، and attainment of the rehabilitative and corrective goals. In Iranian criminal law، according to Islamic jurisprudence، there is no MITIGATION of PUNISHMENT in the Qisas and Diyat، and these penalties are subject to their own rules. In the scope of Ta'zirat، before adoption of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013، the MITIGATION of PUNISHMENT was not organized in the laws and there was no clear judicial procedure in the criminal courts regarding the manner and the amount of MITIGATION. The evolutions and changes made in this law based on corrective goals and social defense are accompanied by a different approach to the MITIGATION. On the one hand، the amount of MITIGATION is determined on the basis of the PUNISHMENT rating، mitigating factors are confined، Absolute conversion of incarceration to fine is prohibited، and power of judges in amount of mitigating are limited to a certain extent. On the other hand، the number of mitigating factors has been increased، the scope of the effect of the MITIGATION has been developed، and the combination of the provisions of MITIGATION and intensification has been organized. However، in spite of the coherent and organized appearance of the provisions of this law، there are some loopholes in this structure، which will manifest itself in practice and may prevent it from achieving its goals. The present study، by demonstrating that the deficiencies of this law will virtually form part of its provisions in conflict with other sectors، will provide suggestions at both legislative and judicial levels to address those objections.

Background and purpose: The importance and necessity of analyzing the differential criminal policy against the crimes of the armed forces has an undeniable effect in preventing the occurrence of crimes. It is impossible to ignore the adoption of a discriminatory and effective criminal policy regarding some crimes, including military crimes, which have a sensitive nature, and the slightest tolerance against them leads to the destruction of the order and security of the society. The necessity of revision is generally related to the adopted policies and the way of their implementation. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the criminal policy governing the two countries regarding the substantive crimes of the armed forces, to find out the decisions made in this area and, if possible, to revise the laws of the Iranian armed forces. Method: The present research was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method. Findings: In both the criminal systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, the legislator has mentioned the issue of increasing PUNISHMENT and reducing PUNISHMENT in the armed forces. Conclusion: The results of the research indicate that in the criminal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the reduction of PUNISHMENT is possible according to the opinion of the court issuing the sentence, but in the law of the United States of America, in addition to the court issuing the sentence, it is also possible according to the opinion of the military commanders. In the criminal system of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the cases of silence of the Law on the PUNISHMENT of Crimes of the Armed Forces approved in 2003, the aggravating qualities stipulated in the Islamic Penal Law approved in 2013 are applied to military personnel, but in the criminal system of the United States of America, the PUNISHMENT is intensified according to the law of the armed forces. It takes place in the United States of America.

The policy to determine and harmonize PUNISHMENT type with the crime based on the authority of the judge is rooted in this view that the law maker cannot decide on the basis of his/her preconceptions. Thus, to harmonize the PUNISHMENT type with the crime, the situation, and the character of the defendant lies within the authority of the judge. Therefore, the judges are allowed not only to issue verdicts, including maximal and minimal PUNISHMENT, but they can also transgress the legal limits with reference to mitigating qualities. Nevertheless, the determination of PUNISHMENT in the special criminal law, outside the Islamic criminal law including the act 71 with respect to the camping against trafficking goods and currency with the ban on MITIGATION and suspension takes a different route. The direction of criminal law making policy is based on this belief that by intimidating the potential wrongdoers and increasing the loss stemmed from the crime compared to the profit, two purposes can be achieved: a) curbing the trafficking of goods and currency, b) provision of budget by issuing monetary penalty. However, the criminal, judicial law policy based on personalization of responses which resorts to impunity and suspension of sentences takes a different direction within the domain of campaign against trafficking goods and currency.

The legal principles that the judge should pay attention to in determining the penalty; There are four clauses mentioned in Article 18 of the Islamic Penal Code. These four clauses are: a) the motive of the perpetrator and his mental and psychological state while committing the crime, b) the method of committing the crime, the extent of breach of duty and its harmful results. c) Actions of the perpetrator after committing the crime and d) Records and personal, family and social situation of the perpetrator and the effect of PUNISHMENT on him. In such a view, the victim has no place and no effect of his intervention can be seen. The part that the current research intends to examine with a descriptive-analytical method, but has not been considered in the clauses of Article 18; It is "victim state" and also "victim's effects on the victim". The results of this research show that the individual characteristics of the victim (gender, race, religion, relationship of the victim with the criminal and physical or mental disability) and the actions of the victim (incitement, illegal action, compensation and consent of the victim) can be effective in determining the PUNISHMENT. Also, the reason for the inclusion of aggravating and mitigating factors is that in the essence of each of them, they intensify or reduce the risk of injury and the degree of blameworthiness. Therefore, it can be said that these factors can be examples of the main constituents of mass proportion.

Remission is a legal instrument to relinquishor put a stop, at any time, on the implementation of any type of PUNISHMENT for a convict after a verdict of a criminal court, of any type or degree, is legally finalized. Remission of a sentence or part of it may be awarded fully or partially, absolutely or conditionally, whether the sentence has been put into practice or not. This means that the law empowers an executive body such as the Head of State, a minister or the Cabinet-in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader on the request of the Head of the Judiciary Power- to relinquish a sentence being executed under its discretion within the law. The institution of remission has existed in Iranian penal law for a long period of time. At present, according to paragraph 11 of Article 110 of the Iranian Constitution and Section 24 of the Iranian penal law, the pardoning of a sentenced offender is granted by the Supreme Leader on the request of the Head of the Judiciary Power. Detailed regulations of how and when remission takes place and who may be a good candidate to be pardoned is determined in the By-law of Commission of Remission and MITIGATION of PUNISHMENT of Convicts 12/9/87 ratified by the Head of the Judiciary. Before the Islamic Revolution, the Cabinet was in charge of ratifying regulations, but after the Revolution, the Head of the Judiciary Power is in charge. The first By-law was ratified by the Cabinet in 28/7/1324. Later, the regulations were amended or completely changed and replaced by a new set of rules more than ten times, none of which took place so soon as did the By-laws of the Commission of Remission and MITIGATION and Substitution of PUNISHMENT in 16/5/87. This By-law did not live long and soon after its ratification, within 4 months in 12/9/87, it was replaced by a new By-law. The old By-law also introduced a new term substitution of PUNISHMENT to be awarded under the regulations of remission. This replacement was very sudden and unusual, and no reason or formal explanation was provided for the event. More importantly a key word, namely substitution of PUNISHMENT was omitted from the title of the new By-law but remained un-touched in the text. Accordingly, this essay is designed to discuss the changes, particularly substitution of PUNISHMENT by means of remission, in the light of an analysis of the definition of remission in law and a historical account of its implementation in conjunction with a comparative analysis of the last two By-laws, i. e. the By-laws of 16/5/87 and 12/9/87. It is concluded that the new By-law (12/9/87) is ultra vires and is in sharp contrast with the law where it recommends substitution of PUNISHMENT to be graced by means of remission. This is because the term substitution of PUNISHMENT is not in harmony with the literal and legal definition/meaning of remission. Legally speaking, substitution of PUNISHMENT is a task which has merely been bestowed on courts that can be decided upon when passing a sentence. Thus, an executive body, the Commission for Remission cannot forfeit this legal power. Moreover, this will harm the principle of independence of the courts and judges and will undermine stability of their verdicts.

The victim is one of important elements of crime and a critical factor of determining PUNISHMENT in criminal systems. Victim’s characteristics have always been noticed. Despite the assertion of laws and claims of executors of criminal justice on equality of people against the law, today victim’s religion and race is a fundamental factor in determining PUNISHMENTs in criminal laws and the procedure of criminal justice executors. These characteristics have acted sometimes to mitigate and sometimes to aggravate the PUNISHMENT. This paper has tried to study the role of victim’s religion and race in determining PUNISHMENT by looking at criminal laws and legal procedures in Iran and England.

MITIGATION of PUNISHMENT and alterante PUNISHMENT are among the institutes of criminal law available in different countries' penal code systems.These two institutes emerged and gained support from legislators and judicial authorities after the advancements of criminology and the needs felt. Such institutes are at work in the armed forces crime act system too.This paper elaborates on the theoretical disciplines of mitigatiion of PUNISHMENT and alternate PUNISHMENT, gives a short history of the functions of them in Iran's Islamic penal code and performs an analysis to present certain comments to erradicate the defects in the system.

The law "Mitigating Ta'ziri Imprisonment PUNISHMENT" was approved in July 2019 with the aim of de-imprisonment by accepting a relative standard to consider theft and fraud crimes as forgivable, leading to challenges and gaps in terms of form and substance. Today, with the identification of the disadvantages of deprivation of liberty and the failure of the prison system in rehabilitating criminals, penal systems, under the influence of criminological teachings and criminological findings such as the increase in recidivism and the crime-causing nature of prisons, are more and more limited in terms of PUNISHMENT. They have become anti-freedom. On the other hand, the bad effects of this PUNISHMENT were noticed by criminologists, and today, although many efforts have been made to improve the condition of the prison, the reformation and treatment of criminals, which was considered one of the main goals of this PUNISHMENT, doubts still prevail. It became serious, and experience showed that, with the help of recidivism statistics, repeated professional crimes are more often committed by those who have had a history of prison. In this way, imprisonment is not only ineffective in rehabilitating and reforming criminals, but also harming the country's economy.By approving the law on mitigating penal PUNISHMENT, the legislator implemented the policy of de-imprisonment through the development of erfaq institutions, reducing the amount of imprisonment and increasing the range of forgivable crimes. Although the mentioned law is useful in mitigating the prison sentence, it has caused wide challenges and created gaps in the legal system and judicial procedure.  The challenges related to the relative impossibility of fraud and theft crimes due to their amounts are one of the factors that have caused changes in the process of criminal prosecution. In the discussion of the initiation of prosecution and actions of the bailiffs in this field, despite the many differences between the jurists, it seems that the principle is that these crimes are unforgivable and the criminal prosecution by the bailiffs is based on the assumption of committing the above crimes.In the matter of determining the appropriate order, the judicial authority should determine the monetary penalty for the issuance of the security order, regardless of whether the crimes are forgivable and based on the initial estimate, and after referring to the expert, he can determine the necessary amount. On the other hand, the most important challenge that has caused a strong difference in the judicial procedure is the issue of the number of crimes that can be forgiven and the appropriate criteria for determining the crimes that can be considered forgivable. It should be such that it justifies the application of the aggregate criterion, despite such a criterion, there is still a wide difference of opinion among the judicial authorities, and it is better to determine the task through a unanimous vote on the above issue. Among the other loopholes governing the law on reducing the PUNISHMENT of imprisonment are related to the calendar of non-calendarable property, obtaining biometric records and interpreting the concept of the absence of a victim in fraud-related crimes, which should be addressed by the legislator. In addition to the above challenges, which mainly covered issues and cases related to formal matters, some challenges also governed substantive issues and cases. The results indicate that the formal challenges in this field are mainly related to the stage of starting criminal prosecution by the officers and the preliminary investigation stage that oversees the issue of paying expert fees and issuing orders to secure and calendar non-calendarable property and obtaining biometric records. Also, the substantive challenges are related to the criterion of considering the crimes as forgivable in the assumption of multiple crimes, determining the monetary PUNISHMENT in the assumption of multiple and the resistance of the judges to the given law. In this talk, it has been tried to explain each of the above challenges and then solve them with a descriptive-analytical method.

Background: From Dostoyevsky's point of view, the touch of death causes fear and anxiety in a person, which forces a person to feel his body and meet his needs. The present study is especially focused on the crime and PUNISHMENT novel by this author. The purpose of this research is to represent the approach of death awareness and finding the meaning of life in relation to death in order to recognize the moral concepts in Dostoevsky's death thoughts in the book Crime and PUNISHMENT. Conclusion: Dostoevsky, as a believer, is searching for the true meaning of life. He considers the two principles of faith in God and morality to give meaning to life and the world. The results of the present study showed that the effect of the death of consciousness and its reflection on how a person lives according to Dostoyevsky can create the will to happiness in a person, which creates moral issues such as moral responsibility, moral awareness in the approval of the other, and self-sacrifice for the other. In this way, it affects the process of human life and changes the way of living

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