This article aims to introduce readers to some principal issues arising from the operation of the courts and, in particular, the Sentencing of offenders. The process of Sentencing is one of the most cohesive actions that the state can apply to individuals as, at its most extreme, it can deprive people of their liberty for very long periods of time. For sentences to be seen as legitimate, they must be imposed after the accused has been found guilty as a result of a fair trial in which the decision has been reached by those with the authority to do so. Sentencing decisions must also be consistent between individuals and geographic location. We shall see in this article that the fundamental principles of English criminal justice process of truth, justice and fairness are stretched by the court and Sentencing process.

In common law systems, Sentencing is an independent stage and completely separate from the stage of conviction. For this and the fact that these legal systems traditionally impose very few limits on the judges discharging the Sentencing function, Sentencing guidelines are issued by the appeal court judges. Within the Civil systems on the other hand this is carried out knowing that this procedure is overseen by the legislator. The aim is to achieve consistency in the justification and imposition of the sentences, that will be considered below.

Sentencing is the most important process in criminal law. On the other hand, the state can have more intervention and force to its citizens. Sentencing not only is the most controversial and sensitive area of criminal law but also is the vaguest area in criminal justice system. Sentencing is not as easy as it appears. Each crime, each criminal, each criminal trial is completely different from another one. Sentencing is an important concern for those who seek the judicial reforms. Recently, in the most countries around the world, the Sentencing practices became reformed and Sentencing based on gender, race, ethnic, socio-economic statues disappeared to some extent. There are four important schemes of Sentencing: definite Sentencing, indefinite Sentencing, presumptive Sentencing, and mandatory Sentencing. This article tries to explore these schemes and explain the characteristics of each scheme. This article has comparative approach to UK criminal justice system and Iran criminal justice system.

There are no fixed criteria for Sentencing across all penal justice systems and they often vary as a result of social circumstances. Apart from having been rooted in its philosophical and ideological fundaments, punishment is a social event which is directly affected by industrial development and civilization progress. An offense is a personal choice since it is normally a consequence of an individual’s reason whereas punishment is an act of collective wisdom following common reasoning of a group. Even though violence is still prevalent in crime in all societies, civilized humans are not allowed to openly apply violence in punishment and no one simply accepts to use it as harsh punishment. At present, employment of violence by the government as part of punishment is subject to such a lot of restrictions that governments do not possess their former freedom in punishment anymore. Demonstration of severity of punishment has gradually disappeared and now punishment systems have been transformed and rationalized due to modern civilization. Along with modernity, apparent demonstration of violence in the form of death carnivals has left the social scene and logic and modern rationality have set in throughout all aspects of human life, especially social reaction to crime.

We can regard the punishment as a process which is applied in two different stages; the first one includes the determination of punishment by the legislator and the second one is Sentencing by the judges. Determination of punishment in the legislation process logically follows its own philosophical principles and the legislator shall obey those principles. However, it should be realized that in practice are not taken into account as such and the most of time, logical and philosophical purposes are sacrificed by the political debates in the parliamentary process. Although the principle of legality requires the judge to set the punishment as it was determined by the legislator, some principles and rules govern on the Sentencing in this stage which in most cases differ from what had been taken into account by the legislator and, of course, are more practical and pragmatic in many aspects. In a wide level, these principles include the principles govern on crime, criminal and victim and each of them has its own effect. However, the base of the Sentencing in this area include: the culpability of the criminal and the obscenity of the crime.

The International Court of Justice has scrutinized both aggravating and mitigating circumstances from its ever lightest sentence against Mr. Almahdi in 2016 to its heaviest sentence against Mr. Ntaganda in 2019 and other Sentencing decisions. This paper is aimed to analyze principles governing on mitigating circumstances in ICC Judgments recommendable to Iranian domestic law. In order to scrutinize the evidence and reasoning of the parties regarding the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the trial chamber may on its own motion or at the request of the Prosecutor or the accused hold a further hearing to hear any evidence or submissions relevant to the sentence. Then it accepts or rejects the submissions of the parties one by one by its detailed reasoning. This procedure is advisable for our domestic law. In this Descriptive-Analytical research analyzing and comparing various Sentencing judgments it is found that to establish mitigating circumstances, the court takes into account all personal circumstances and behaviors of the convicted person from early steps of committing crimes, after commission, surrender to the court, during detention, trial and imprisonment. Because of the gravity of international crimes even if various mitigating circumstances established, the minimum imprisonment will not be less than two years.

The main axis affecting the reduction of crimes and targeting the determination and execution of punishment is paying attention to the education of individuals, which can guarantee the realization of the rehabilitation of convicts, bind the criminal justice system to criminal studies and make criminal institutions more effective. In the present article, through field study and its combination with theoretical studies, an attempt has been made to provide a proposed model for determining the indicators affecting the correction and rehabilitation of convicts to imprisonment or social punishments in the form of training courses from the perspective of related institutions. Punish. Given the need to reduce recidivism and achieve the goals of Sentencing convicts to punishment, the fundamental question is what is the status of implementation of education-oriented rules governing Sentencing and what indicators can restore the position of correction and treatment of education? The statistical population of the study consists of two spectrums of 80 experts and 100 convicts. The collection of library information was in the form of receipt and field, the data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire, and consisted of several indicators, data analysis was performed using SPSS software version 19 and the reliability of the research was Cronbach's alpha was confirmed above. They are also considered as systematization of punishment.

Sentencing is an important phase of criminal process in a scrutinized and purposeful criminal justice and one of the controversial objects in this respect is the optimal level of judicial discretion. By and large, there are two approaches at issue in this matter. First approach, broadly taken in Iranian criminal justice system, is giving the judges a wide discretion to weigh the circumstances of each case and choosing the best punishment for the perpetrator. This approach is based on the idea that the criminal judge has a great ability in knowing the characteristics of the crime and the offender and in identifying the best reaction toward her. So, he must have a wide discretionary power to personalize the criminal reaction and rehabilitate the offender. But there have been many criticisms to this approach, theoretically and practically. So, another approach has been put forward which is based on a predefined model, called Sentencing guidelines. This approach, first taken in United Sates in 1980s, is currently being implemented in many countries. Enhancing the transparency of the Sentencing, promoting public confidence in criminal justice system, fastening the Sentencing phase of criminal process and increasing the deterrent function of punishment by increasing its certainty, are some of the benefits of this approach.

The concept of individualized Sentencing, as a core principle of modern criminal justice, aims to impose penalties that are proportionate and humane by considering each offender's psychological, social, and criminal background. Despite the existence of theoretical and Islamic jurisprudential foundations in Iran's legal system, the implementation of individualized Sentencing faces significant structural, legal, and procedural challenges. This article explores the legal obstacles and opportunities for individualized Sentencing in Iran, providing a multidimensional analysis rooted in theoretical, jurisprudential, and comparative frameworks. It begins by conceptualizing individualized Sentencing and outlining its reformative, reintegrative, and justice-driven objectives. The study then examines issues such as the lack of established judicial precedent, inconsistency with general criminal law principles, absence of professional assessment systems, and prevailing sociocultural pressures. The Islamic perspective is also evaluated, highlighting the potential support for individualized Sentencing through principles such as repentance, proportionality, and compassion. The comparative section of the paper reviews successful international models, particularly in addressing drug-related offenses. Furthermore, the article assesses the influence of human rights obligations and international criticism on Iran’s penal policies. In conclusion, it proposes legal reforms, structured offender assessment protocols, and professional training initiatives as strategic pathways to harmonize Iran's criminal justice system with the principles of individualized Sentencing.