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

---

Recognizing the boundary of criminal intervention and non-criminal intervention in individual liberty is a question with is considered in debate of Principle on Criminalization. In crimination of cybercrimes specifies those acts which could be criminal in cyberspace. This procedure is based on some issues, such as principle of harm and The principle of individual independence, which limit incrimination and justification scopes. Some of them, such as the principle of general interest and the principle of the rule of law, are supporting incrimination as well, these principles as a rule and pattern determine those acts which should be excluded from state’s authority. This paper seeks to respond this question that how much are affected both Iranian and German criminal legislation systems, of incrimination of cyber wrongdoings? How much German concerned findings could be used in Iranian system? Findings of this research show that, German legislators, in a liberal manner which is based on human liberation and Individualism, which is mostly affect by principle of harm, provided that, the harm was sever and other preventive ways were impossible or useless. But Iranian legislator, along with using the principle of ham, with a different interpretation, considers harm to morality and Islamic worth, and this Iranian legislator’s notion is justified by the principle of rule of law and principle of general interest.

Keywords: Cyber crime, Basic principles of Criminalization, Harm principle, Legal paternalism, Individual independence

Full-Text [PDF 803 kb]   (4029 Downloads)    

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

---