The restrictive interpretation in favor of the accused in criminal law of Iran and England

Authors

  • Mahmoud Rouholamini Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
  • Alireza BarkhoriMehni Electronic Branch, Islamic Azad University
  • Mohammad AminZadeh Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24200/jsshr.vol3iss03pp13-19

Abstract

The findings suggest that the restrictive interpretation of Iran's rights which is the result of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, in most cases, emerges in favour of the accused. Principles such as "the legality of crime and punishment and the presumption of innocence are among the most important principles of interpretation. Methodology: The use of broad interpretation of criminal law in restrictive interpretation is much weaker than the restrictive interpretation and it will be used only in case it leads to interpretation in favour of the accused. By virtue of rule of (major penalty is not given in case of suspicious proof), place of interpretation in jurisprudence is not independent. Results: This interpretation is compatible with issues such as principle of innocence, authenticity and principle of permissibility and can be studied under these titles. But in England law, law is interpreted with literal method and text description. They think that the law text should respond to the events. Therefore, the wording of law shall be read according to the meaning understood by customary law. Less attention is paid to intention of the legislator and the spirit of the law. Conclusion: The court is not responsible for filling gaps of law   and compensating for its defect and silence because this means that the judge has acted on behalf of the legislator and has usurped legislation capacity and that the judge has rewritten the law. 

References

Ali-Abadi, A, 2009. Creating obligations arising from contracts in Islamic law, danesh pazir publications

Amini, M., Nateghenoori, S., 2011. Comparative study of the theory of loss of chance, Overview of Europe and the United States of America, Journal of Comparative Law, 15(3), 12-20.

Ardabili, M.A. 2005. Public Criminal Law, Tehran, Mizan, 8th edition. First Vol.

Ashuri, M., 2005. Criminal Justice, Tehran, Ganj Danesh Publication.

Ashworth, A., 2008, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press.

Bailey.H.R.,and Gunn, M.J. 1996. The Modern English Legal Syatem,3 rd ed. LondonTerence Ingman (1990), The English Legal Process,3 rd ed.London.

Beccaria, C. 1989. Crime and Punishment, translation, MA City No 1, Tehran University martyr Beheshti.

Hosseini, S.M. 2004. Criminal policy in Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, Samt Publication

Jafari-Langroodi, M.J., 1993. Legal Dictionary, Tehran, Amir Kabir Publication.

Jafari-Langroodi, M.J. 2008. General Introduction to Law. Tehran. Ganj Danesh Publication.

Katoozian, N., 1996. The requirements out of the contract (liability compulsory), Tehran University Press

Katoozian, N., 1998. Civil rights, obligations out of the kcontract, the liability enforcement, Tehran University Institute Press

Pinatel, J., & Bouzat, P. 1970. Traite de droit penal et de criminologie. tome 1: droit penal general. tome 2: procedure penale. regime des mineurs domaine des lois penales dans le temps et dans l espace. tome 3: criminologie.(lehrbuch des strafrechts und der kriminologie.). Dalloz.

Sarmast-Banab, B., 2008. Principle of Innocence in criminal law of Iran, Tehran, Dadgostar Publication.

Zeraat, A., 2010. Public Criminal Law. Tehran. Ghaghnoos Publication

Downloads

Published

2019-08-10

Issue

Section

Articles