Rethinking the Theoretical Foundations of Criminalizing “Status” versus “Conduct”: A Comparative Study of Iranian and American Law

Nikbakht, Salman; Ebrahimi, Alireza

doi:10.48311/clr.2026.117372.82789

Rethinking the Theoretical Foundations of Criminalizing “Status” versus “Conduct”: A Comparative Study of Iranian and American Law

Articles in Press

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors

Salman Nikbakht ¹

Alireza Ebrahimi ²

¹ Ph.D. Graduate, Department of Jurisprudence and the Foundations of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

² Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and the Foundations of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

10.48311/clr.2026.117372.82789

Abstract

One of the central debates in criminal law concerns the possibility of criminalizing “statuses” identified solely by a person’s condition rather than by a specific act. This article, using a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach between Iran and the United States, reexamines the theoretical foundations distinguishing “status” from “conduct.” It outlines the basis of status-based offenses and compares the two systems’ criminal policies. The findings show that Iran still criminalizes conditions such as vagrancy and addiction, whereas in the United States, Supreme Court decisions- especially Robinson and Powell- consider the criminalization of mere status incompatible with the Eighth Amendment. The analysis further stresses that the presence of an external act is essential to criminal liability; without it, the principle of minimal criminalization is undermined and the boundary between morality, deviance, and crime becomes blurred.

Keywords

Status

Condition

Status-based offenses

Criminalization

Criminal law of Iran and the United States

Subjects