نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه حقوق، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ملایر، ملایر، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Legislators, in the process of criminalization—defined as resorting to penal instruments to achieve specific objectives—may find themselves caught in the dilemma of “the end justifies the means.” This risk is more pronounced in the criminalization of acts against the government than in other offenses, since the government, by employing punishment to preserve itself, is exposed to the danger of the instrumental use of penal power, penal Machiavellianism, or the separation of ethics from criminal policy. Using a descriptive–analytical method, this study demonstrates that the common justifications for criminalizing such offenses include divine sovereignty, the sovereignty of perfect reason, natural sovereignty, consent, the ethics of responsibility, and the rule of maintaining the system (ḥifẓ al-niẓām). Among these, the most ethically grounded justification is a synthesis of the ethics of responsibility and an alternative reading of the rule of maintaining the system. This approach requires that only those behaviors be criminalized that, first, cause a disruption to the political order and seriously endanger its existence; second, that penal intervention be necessary to fulfill the responsibility of governing society and maintaining its existing order and organization; and third, that the penal response prescribed by law be proportionate to the disruption caused. Otherwise, criminalization would be unethical. A review of the catalogue of offenses in Iran’s criminal laws indicates the existence of certain instances of such unethical criminalization, making their reconsideration necessary.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)