Jurisprudential standards and judicial interpretation of criminal law; Criticism of the opinion of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court in aggravating the ta'ziri whipping

Abstract

The jurisprudential standards have absolutely prohibited the punishment of ta'zir whipping more than the prescribed for Hodud, both in the legislative stage and in the judiciary. Such rules are typically regarded in post-revolutionary criminal law and the judicial precedent. However, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, in its decision, No. 795 - 1399/18/6, considered such a restriction to determine the punishment without imposing aggravating circumstances, and in case of recidivism, relying on Article 137 of the Islamic Penal Code, the punishment of flogging has declared more than the prescribed amount permissible. The Supreme Court's opinion can be criticized for a number of reasons. Ruling the legal regulations to the Shari'a standards against individuals, non-observance of jurisprudential standards and rules of interpretation of criminal laws such as in dubio pro reo and the holistic interpretation are the problems with the Supreme court's decision. unified judicial precedent contrary to the Shari'a, can be violated through the application of Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Keywords

• "ta'zir"
• "whipping"
• "hodud"
• "general assembly of the supreme court"
• "unified judicial precedent no. 795"