One of the most important issues in the national and international arena in recent decades, especially in the present era, is the issue of the drug phenomenon and its harmful effects on human societies. All societies and most governments agree that drugs and crime As a result, it poses a serious threat to the human race. However, you have to think of a solution to this sinister phenomenon. The solutions that have been implemented in recent years have been based on a kind of criminal strictness in punishments. Thus, the main policy of the deterrence view is to threaten or enforce criminal penalties to reduce the motive for the crime; That is, the use of punishment as a deterrent that prevents the offender from repeating the crime and also reduces the motivation of others to commit the same crime in general. In Iran's anti-narcotics criminal law, too, a strict approach has always been taken towards drug offenders and with severe punishments of deprivation of liberty and deprivation of life. However, in recent years, a fundamental question has been raised in this regard, whether the imposition of severe punishments such as execution and life imprisonment, etc., has had the effect of deterring the commission of drug-related crimes? In the present article, which has been done in a descriptive-analytical method, using library resources and texts, with the aim of explaining and explaining the deterrence of severe punishments related to drug crimes, and in this regard, different dimensions of the issue in terms of field, statistics, policy The criminological and sociological studies have concluded that the intensification of punishment does not play a significant role in crime prevention and that recognizing the causes of crime and adopting preventive and corrective approaches is more necessary and effective than necessary. In this article, in addition to brief references to the purposes of punishment, deterrence as one of the most famous and oldest theories of justification of punishment and its types, the subject of this type of application is severely restrained. punishments do not in principle have the effect of deterring drug-related crimes, and it is better for the legislature to pay more attention to non-criminal methods of prevention.

The law of discretionary punishment being lower than legal punishment is one of the most famous laws in Shiite jurisprudence that is really functional in Islamic penal jurisprudence. This law is basically based on tradition and narrations from which this rule can be deduced. Some narrations directly mention that discretionary punishment is lower than legal punishment. Others present certain amount for discretionary punishment which is lower than legal punishment. Some other narrations deny legal punishment for some particular acts and instead suggest discretionary punishment for that. Although there are disputes over these narrations, they all share one thing: the law of discretionary punishment is lower than legal punishment.In order to interpret this law, some issues have been taken into account. Some jurists define eighty lashes of standard legal punishment for a free man and forty lashes for a slave. Others believe that discretionary punishment should be relevant. For instance, in acts which can be compared to "false accusation of adultery", the standard legal punishment is as mentioned above. However, some others suggest seventy five lashes as the standard legal punishment. This essay reviews various attitudes and presents a theory.There are some cases in Shiite jurisprudence that discretionary punishment has been the assigned as legal punishment and the author reviews whether this matter is an exception to this law or not. The final part of the essay is the relation between this law and the Islamic penal law.

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 concept of punishment is one of the most important concepts of Plato’s philosophy, which is achievable through dialectic, using the ordinary concept of punishment. By denying the basis of revenge view of punishment in his own time, Plato establishes his philosophy of punishment on basis of rehabilitation of the criminal. The criminal, Plato says, is primarily a man who is ignorant of the good and the evil and a sick man who suffers from instability of his rational faculty, i.e. his reason cannot take his anger and his lust under its control. Thus the punishment must make the criminal aware of the true good and the true evil, and like a painful treatment endues him the ability to control his anger and lust. So, logically, there are two possibilities: we must either fortify the superior power, i.e. the reason, or we must debilitate the inferior power i.e. anger and lust. Consequently, the Platonic punishment would be executed in two ways: on is to fortify the reason by means of education; the other is to lower the power of the inferior desires. The first is containing the wide realm of education, while the second includes the wide range of weakness; Therefore, Platonic punishment includes a range, from education to weakness, containing practical exercises, restriction, coercion and even murder. Finally, with categorizing and character recognition of the criminal, Plato determines the rehabilitative method and goal of the punishment.

As a kind of indefinite punishment, the discretionary punishment is the most. pervasive reaction to criminality in the Islamic penal policy. The efficacy of the discretionary punishment depends on how we use it to adjust the foregoing reaction to the guilty personality. Some Shi'a jurisprudents believe that just like Prohibition of the Evil, the discretionary punishment should be used by observing gradation. That is, it should be started from low grades such as warning, reproaching, etc. in petty offences, and in case the wrong deed is repeated. the more severe punishments such as imprisonment can be used. In other words, if the judge knows that deterrence can be attained through slighter punishments like reproaching, he/she should not issue the whipping, imprisonment. or suchlike severe punishments in the first occurrence of a petty offence. With regard to the extensive reliance on the imprisonment and physical punishments in criminal laws and the widespread use of imprisonment by judges, even for the first-time offenders-which has led to the increased density of convicts' number in prisons - specification of the discretionary punishments can be of great use. The article explicates the viewpoints of those Islamic jurisprudents who believe in the discretionary punishment gradation, presents the benefits, positive effects, and challenges facing this kind of punishment, and provides a clear-cut, practical, and effective proposal that can be applied in the penal policy. In addition to the Sunni jurisprudents, some early Shi'a jurisprudents such as Sheikh Tusi (May he reside in God's paradise) and some contemporary ones such as Mirza Javad Agha Tabrizi (May he reside in God's paradise), Fazil Hendi (May he reside in God's paradise) - the author of Kashf al-Letharn-and Allameh Helli (May he reside in God's paradise) are the main adherents of this viewpoint. whose respective opinions will be examined in the article. Acceptance of the discretionary punishment gradation theory in the penal law can bring about several positive consequences, including reduction of the convict's number in prisons. the possibility of better planning for the fewer remaining prisoners, and the possibility of adopting rehabilitation programs for those who have committed an offence due to ignorance and obliviousness.

Penalties that are based on principles that can be applied in all punishments should be respected whik corporal punishment is one of the types of sanctions that has been divided according to the nature of the punishment. This type of penalty follows certain principles that distinguishes them from other punishments. Although these principles can be also be seen in some other punishments, despite this corporal punishment is placed under question. Inflicting pain, causing stigma, being severe, vindictiveness and retribution are certain principles governing corporal punishments. What do these principles mean and what is their basis? What aims do these principles follow? In today's social situation and according to Iran's penal system, how is corporal punishment and what place does it have? This set of issues is investigated and discussed in this paper.

The birth and transformation of punishment is the outcome of other social phenomena, and in particular the perception of public opinion about the nature and function of punishment. Due to this dependence, the role of public opinion can not be disregarded when it comes to criminal policy making. Field surveys are a way to decipher the criminal will of the community. The present paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, aims at analyzing the degree of convergence of public opinion with corporal punishments from a socio-cognitive perspective. The statistical population is all citizens of Mashhad in 13 areas in 1395. Data collection was done through researcher-made survey questionnaire. The results of the research show that the extent to which public opinion agrees with severe punishments in crimes which directly offend public feelings, such as rape, acid attack, and embezzlement is high. On the contrary, in crimes based on satisfaction (sodomy) and in crimes with socioeconomic grounds (drug-related crimes and robbery), the level of opposition to severe punishment is high. These diverse views and tendencies of the public should be considered in criminal legislation. Not paying attention to these tendencies would trigger a chain of public resistance against a formal criminal policy.

It is possible to accept pecuniary penalty legitimacy according to "Mansoseh Reasoning", authorization of pecuniary punishment based on governor's viewpoint and secondary precepts citation. With regard to the previous jurists' viewpoints, these punishments are illegal but contemporary jurists tend to account them legal. The most important reason is the establishment of Shiite government that caused to review judicial resources. The reason of who accepted pecuniary punishment as illegal is controversial. Furthermore, authorization of financial punishment can be proved by secondary precepts.

The punishment of multiple offenses, due to the need to strike a balance between the two main principles of punishment, justice and correction, faces fundamental challenges to justification. By leaving aside the comparison of multiplicity of T'azir crimes with the Hudud and the amendments to Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, the rational justification of this kind of punishment has become necessary. Therefore, this article by using a descriptive-analytical method, in an attempt to reconcile the institution of crime multiplicity with the philosophy of punishment and in the light of a comparative study of this issue in the three legal systems of Egypt, Germany and the United Kingdom, intends to ask the question that "what are the desirable principles and models for determining the punishment of real multiplicity of T'azir crimes? " The British legal system, striking a balance between the two goals of justice and correction, has proposed a model of the relative aggregation of punishments, which is a combination of the model of the real and judicial aggregation of punishments. German and Egyptian law follow the real aggregation model and have limited this model. The punishment of multiple crimes in Iranian law due to ambiguity in purpose has followed all models and this has caused in some cases, the severity of the penalty for multiple offenses and sometimes less than other legal systems. This hesitation has been against both apparent and real justice and against the correctional purpose of punishments.