مطالعه تطبیقی سیاست جنایی ایران و انگلستان در قبال جرایم مرتبط با مشروبات الکلی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
تدوین سیاست جنایی جامع و منسجم در قبال جرایم مرتبط با مشروبات الکلی از اهمیت به سزایی برخوردار است. سیاست جنایی تقنینی ایران بر مبنای ممنوعیت مصرف مشروبات الکلی و با تأکید بر نظریه جرم انگاری مطلق، سعی بر جرم انگاری تمام رفتارهای مرتبط با آن داشته است. با این حال، وجود برخی خلأها و چالش ها ی تقنینی و عدم انسجام رویه قضایی در برخی از ابعاد، شبهه تشتّت را مطرح می نماید. سیاست جنایی انگلستان نیز، با توجه به عدم ممنوعیت اولیه مصرف الکل، نوعی رویکرد قانونمندسازی و نظارتی را اتخاذ و از نظام عدالت کیفری برای کنترل برخی از رفتارهای مرتبط، استفاده نموده است. در حقوق این کشور، مصادیق مختلفی از رفتارهای مرتبط که بیشتر ماهیت ضد اجتماعی دارند، جرم انگاری شده و جرایم مرتبط با رانندگی در حال مستی از مهم ترین آن ها هستند. این مقاله به روش توصیفی- تحلیلی به مطالعه و ارزیابی سیاست جنایی تقنینی و قضایی این دو کشور در قبال این جرایم، می پردازد.Comparative study of the criminal policy of Iran and England regarding offenses related to alcoholic drinks
Formulation of a comprehensive and coherent criminal policy regarding alcohol-related offenses is very important. Iran's legislative criminal policy, based on the prohibition of alcohol consumption, with an emphasis on the theory of absolute criminalization, has attempted to criminalize all behaviors related to it. However, the existence of some legislative gaps and challenges and lack of coherence in jurisprudence in some relevant dimensions raises doubt about the integration. Due to the lack of an initial prohibition on alcohol consumption, the legislative criminal policy of England has adopted a type of legalization and supervisory approach and uses the criminal justice system to control certain behaviors related to alcohol. In the law of this country, various instances of alcohol-related behaviors that are mainly antisocial in nature have been criminalized, and offenses related to drunk driving are among the most important ones. This article uses descriptive and analytical methods to study and evaluate the legislative and judicial criminal policy of these two countries regarding alcohol-related offenses.1. Introduction Nowadays, due to the increase in the consumption of alcoholic drinks and their harmful effects, it is important to examine the legislative and judicial criminal policy regarding related offenses. It seems that the accepted theory in Iran's legislative criminal policy, in terms of the jurisprudential approach to the issue, is the theory of criminalization which, with its emphasis on the absolute criminalization of all behaviors related to and affected by the format and primary prohibition of alcohol consumption, has tried to criminalize previous and subsequent behaviors of consumption.The lack of initial prohibition of consumption in England has caused the legislature to disregard absolute criminalization and decriminalization and emphasize the legalization and regularization of alcohol-related behaviors such as supply, sale, and consumption. The government maintains the supervision of alcohol and gives activity licenses to individuals and necessary sanctions have been considered for violation of the stipulated conditions. The legislator has also criminalized instances of related behaviors and paid special attention to the offenses related to drunk driving. In this area, the judicial criminal policy of this country has moved in the direction of homogeneity of sentencing by following the guideline-based sentencing model. MethodologyThis article studies describes, analyzes, and evaluates the legislative and judicial criminal policy of these two countries regarding the behaviors related to alcoholic drinks. In this regard, using a descriptive-analytical method based on data review and studying library resources, including documents and laws, after examining the description of related behaviors and response and sentencing, it deals with effective policies in these two categories. Results and DiscussionIn the laws of England, the legislator, while not prohibiting absolutely, and adopting a supervisory and control approach, in many cases with goals such as maintainingorder and security of society, supporting vulnerable groups, and combatting the irresponsible sale of alcohol, alcohol abuse, hazardous drinking, public intoxication, etc…, has criminalized instances of behaviors. licensing Act 2003, while determining the activities that require a license (including the sale and supply of alcohol), and determining the criteria, has criminalized instances of related behaviors. Selling or attempting to sell or allowing the sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk on relevant premises, or refusal of a person who is drunk to leave relevant premises without a reasonable excuse and following the request of the officer or designated people are among these examples.This law, regarding compliance with age requirements, has also criminalized examples such as selling or supplying alcohol to an individual aged under 18 Moreover, offenses related to alcohol-related driving, including drunk driving, are among the most important criminal titles in this area, which can have heavy consequences for the offender. Legislators in the Road Traffic Act (1988) and other related laws like the Road Traffic Offenders Act (1988) have dealt with them. In Iranian law, the consumption of intoxicants (regardless of the amount and whether or not it leads to drunkenness) is criminalized. In addition, the legislator has criminalized related behaviors, including the preliminary behaviors (carry, having, smuggling, selling, etc.)However, the legislator has not criminalized drunk driving independently and made it a violation. Therefore, in this assumption, there is no change in the charge of consumption of intoxicants or the punishment of the accused. Only in the case that a drunk driver causes death or physical injury, the intoxication will be a factor in aggravating the relevant Ta’zir punishments. Perhaps the attachment of Had penalty to all cases committing acts related to drinking has led to the non-criminalization of drunk driving behavior separately, while there is no connection between proving the state of intoxication and proving Had of intoxicant consumption.Another important aspect of understanding the criminal policy in this area is to examine the nature of the determined responses. In this area, the English legislator has mostly established fines, and in the area of alcohol-related driving offenses, while establishing multiple criminal titles, he has benefited from the various sanctions. fines, community orders, driving disqualification, penalty points, compensation, and in serious cases a custodial (prison) sentence are among these examples. In Iran, whipping is divided into two forms, Had and Ta’zir For the offense of consuming intoxicants, it is Had, and for other related offenses, it is Ta’zir, if determined.In related Ta’zir offenses, in addition to fines and whipping, imprisonment and alternatives to imprisonment are also among deterministic answers.Generally, in Iranian criminal law, the criminal policies governing these offenses can be considered strict. This issue can be seen while describing Had punishment of intoxicant consumption and the strict regulations governing some related crimes. Regarding the offenses of alcohol trafficking, the adoption of a differential criminal policy in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases such as jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Court, issuance of mandatory bail order, if there are prescribed conditions, and the possibility of imposing a fine other than the conversion imprisonment, even after the release from prison, in case the property is identified, is one of the effects of this approach.In England, the implementation of regulatory regulations is important, and a violation of them causes the person's behavior to be subject to enforcement and any action to buy and sell outside of the established processes and licenses will be subject to accountability. Licensing Act (2003), which constitutes the main pillar of Britain’s alcohol-related laws, and regulates the terms and conditions of this area and other related laws, tells about the accuracy and strictness in the aspect of supervision. ConclusionsThe difference between these two systems is the lack of primary prohibition of alcohol consumption in English law and the absolute prohibition of this behavior in Iranian law. Iran's criminal policy has emphasized the criminalization of all behaviors related to alcohol. However, the criminal policy of England has considered a type of monitoring and control regime as preferable to absolute criminalization and decriminalization and has criminalized some related behaviors that are mainly anti-social in nature. UK criminal policy has adopted a more severe approach to alcohol-related driving offenses compared to other related offenses. While Iran's criminal policy regarding alcohol-related offenses is generally severe and strict regarding the offenses of alcohol trafficking, it has also adopted a different formal and substantive criminal policy.These two countries are similar in the description of cases such as drinking alcohol in public places, but in particular drunk driving, it must be said that in Iran's legal system, this behavior is one of the examples of traffic violations and does not have an independent criminal title, and it is only considered as an aggravating quality of punishment in traffic accidents resulting in death or physical injury; This issue is considered one of the legislative gaps in this area. Considering the serious dangers of this behavior, it is appropriate to criminalize it independently and convert it from the form of a violation to a more severe form, i.e. Ta’ziri offense, and in the relevant regulations, formal and substantive criteria related to its various dimensions should be accurately predicted. The necessity of regulating issues such as the seizure of the vehicle in other offenses related to alcohol is also obvious.In Iranian law, the jurisdiction or suspension of the punishment, and the validity of the breathalyzer test are among the topics that have always been or are accompanied by disagreements regarding some offenses related to this area. Therefore, the clarity and coherence of legislative and judicial criminal policy in this field and their alignment will lead to the realization of judicial justice. Selection of ReferencesClarkson, C.M.V. (2005). Understanding Criminal Law. Fourth Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Cross, N. (2020), Criminal Law for Criminologists: Principles and Theory in Criminal Justice. New York: Routledge.Dyson, M (ed). (2020). Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law 2020-2021. 30<sup>th</sup> edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Herring, J. (2022). Criminal Law the Basics. Second Edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Herring, J. (2019). Macmillan Law Masters Criminal Law. Eleventh Edition. London: Red Globe Press. Mehra, Nasrin; Ghoorchi Beygi, Majid; Moazzen, Abbas, (2017). “Sentencing Schemes: Comparative Approach to Iran and UK Criminal Law ", Criminal Law Research, 6th year, no. 20, pp. 105-140. https://doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2017.10525.1185. [In Persian]Mirmohamad Sadeghi, Hossein (2013). Offenses against persons, 11th edition, Tehran: Mizan Publication. [In Persian]Rahmani, Hossein, (2012). Alcohols from the viewpoint of the Quran, ahadith, and medical sciences. Ahvaz: Tarava Publications. [In Persian]Rahmdel, Mansour, (2003). "Comparative study of the criminal policy of Iran, England, and Wales regarding drug trafficking", Doctoral dissertation in criminal law and criminology, Tehran University. [In Persian]Room, R., Cisneros Örnberg, J. (2020). “A Framework Convention on Alcohol Control: Getting Concrete about Its Contents”. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 12(2), 433-443. doi:10.1017/err.2020.73.Sabooripour, Mehdi, (2018), "Systematization the Sentencing in Discretionary Punishment in Iranian Law", Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, vol.48, no.1, pp.143-123. https://doi.org/10.22059/jqclcs.2018.243857.1248 [In Persian]
تبلیغات
