---

Nariman Tirgar Fagheri Mohammad Hossein Najafi Abarand Abadi The restriction of custodial sentences is the importance subject which suggested in the criminal policy of the most pencl system. In this article we dislussed the global efforts and criminal legislation policy of Iran for restriction of custeidal sentence. The main motives to notice of such policy are tbe unsuccesfully costoidal sentence in socialre reintegration of offenders goals of decreasing prison over crowching and preventional recidivism decreasing of expenditure that resulting enforcement of custoidal sentence. Also the efforts for restrictional custoidal sentence in global level has as effects on national legislation with the guiding rules. At this fundation we discussed regional international activities for restriction of custiodal sentence of finally the changes of Iranian criminal legislation policies in before ofter islamic revolution. Consequencely ofter considering the global efforts to criminal legistation policy of iran we needs to supply certain practical method. It also suggsted that to be supply certain practical method with vespect of accepted principal for sentences and with consideveing the international practical method to guiding rules in ordered to suitable used of adjustment to atieration to suspention policy of cuntiodal sentence.

---

Hossein gholami Ph.D. Candidate, Tarbiat Modares University Ali Hossein Najafi Abrand Abadi Associate Professor, Department of Law, Shahid Beheshti University In this paper at first this theory is analised and then its approach with regard to recidivism is explainded. Just deserts theory, is really a return to the crime centerality epoch of crlminal law renewed in 1970s after a number of criminological resarches, implies inefficiency of corrections under the basis of rehabilition theory Just deserts theory was appreciated after a short period of time by penal lawyers, some of criminalogists, and administration of criminial custody centres. The main controversy of this theory and rival ones on recidivism is the justification or nonjustification of aggravating the punishment of recidivists which caused disagreements not only between just deserts theory and the other penal law theories but also among other founders and adherents of this theory with regards to “flat - rate sentencing" and “ progressive loss of mitigation" approaches.

---

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.