نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 استاد، گروه حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The current research is tending to identify, criticize and examine the nature of secondary punishment as well as the justifications and foundations of deprivations emerging from, so as to determine the basis of imposing secondary punishment on convicts and clarify the reasonable and justified scope of imposing such deprivations on individuals, and then the scope of exclusions resulting from the imposition of secondary punishment on convicts in Iran's criminal law should be adapted to this reasonable and justified scope, so that suggestions for correction or rehabilitation regarding the scope and the amount of use of secondary punishment in Iranian criminal law should be presented. The research method hired here was descriptive-analytical and the results have depicted that if we consider the nature of consequential punishment as reprimanding, it should be noted that punishment basically owes its justification to punitiveness or utilitarianism. In justifying consequential punishment through punitiveness, although the criminal has violated the social contract and deserves punishment, committing a crime does not mean that criminals never accept the social contract in general and nor cause them to lose all their social rights. Also, one of the fundamental principles of penalizing is the principle of proportionality of crime and punishment, contrary to the principle of proportionality for various reasons, it cannot
be justified on the basis of punitiveness. In justifying secondary punishment through utilitarianism, in addition to doubting the deterrent effect of secondary punishments, their non-transparent and unclear nature is contrary to the purpose of deterrence. Disability as
a punishment cannot be imposed on those who have paid all debt to the society. Also, it was found that secondary punishments neither have a positive role in reforming nor rehabilitating ex-criminals, that only label them as untrustworthy and make their social rehabilitation process merely difficult. Therefore, on the basis of utilitarian theories it cannot justify consequential punishment as a punishment, as if the punishment nature is assumed to be a consequence of security measures, the dangerous state of ex-criminals, maximum predictions and unrelated deprivations are criticized. Finally, although to solve such inconvenience, punishment is justified through protective measures, therefore, the interventions aforementioned should not be without limits.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)