Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

---

The question of plurality and repetition of crime in the Iranian criminal law may be approached from three different angles: first is the definition which has been given to the said terms. Despite some doubts, there has been no change regarding the definition of the plurality of crime after the 1979 Revolution. However, as to the repetition of crime, the Iranian legislator while considering the issue of Hodud (God made punishment), has made an incomplete definition open to criticism. Second is the distinction which has been made between two kinds of material plurality of crimes. The legislat or has divided it to two category of material plurality of similar and different crimes. As to the later, the rule of collective punishment has been applied, whereas regarding the former, the rule of unity of punishment or the court's discretionary power to aggravate the penalty has been accepted. This initiation has also taken root from the hodud issue but considering the fundamental and substantive differences which exist between the rules governing Hodud and Tazirat (Judg made punishment), this measure of the legislator is untenable. Third issue concerns the criterion of aggrevating punishment in plurality of similar crimes and repetition of crime. The legislator, in spite of granting the judge the discretion to aggravate punishment, has indicated no criterion for it. This has led the Iran's supreme court to take a decision on the basis of the principle of nulla poena sine lege when it approached the issue of plurality of similar crimes. It did not approved the power of the courts to determine a punishment more than the maximum legal penalty.

Keywords: Plurality of Crime, Material Plurality of Crime, Repetition of Crime (Recidivism), Aggravation of Punishment

     

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

---