Critical Review of Models of Determining Real Multiplicity Punishment of Ta'zir Crimes in Egyptian, German, British & Iranian Law

Sadati, Seyyed Mohammad Mahdi; Jamali, Tal&#039;at

doi:10.22096/law.2021.106666.1439

Critical Review of Models of Determining Real Multiplicity Punishment of Ta'zir Crimes in Egyptian, German, British & Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Seyyed Mohammad Mahdi Sadati ¹

Tal'at Jamali ²

¹ Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology Department. Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

² Ph.D. Student of Criminal Law and Criminology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

10.22096/law.2021.106666.1439

Abstract

The punishment of multiple offenses faces fundamental challenges to justification. By leaving aside the comparison of multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes with the multiplicity of Hudud and the amendments to Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, the rational justification of the punishment of the multiplicity of Ta'zir has become necessary.

Therefore, this article by using a descriptive-analytical method, in an attempt to reconcile the institution of crime multiplicity with the philosophy of punishment and in the light of a comparative study of this issue in the three legal systems of Egypt, Germany and the United Kingdom on behalf of three different legal systems, intends to ask the question that ‘’what are the desirable principles and models for determining the punishment of real multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes?

The British legal system, in an attempt to strike a balance between the two goals of justice and correction of the offender, has proposed a model of the relative Aggregation of punishments, which is a combination of the model of the real Aggregation and the judicial Aggregation of punishments. German and Egyptian law follow the real aggregation model and have limited this model.
The result is that the punishment of multiple crimes in Iranian law due to ambiguity in purpose, has followed all existing models and this has caused in some cases, the severity of the penalty for multiple offenses and sometimes less than other legal systems. This hesitation has been both against apparent and real justice and against the correctional purpose of punishments.

Keywords

Unite punishment

Real Multiplicity of Crimes

relative collection of crime

objective responsibility of Punishment

Most Severe Punishment

A) Books & Articles
- Ancel, Marc (2003). Social Defence: A Modern Approach to Criminal Problems. London: Routledge.
- Ashworth, A. (2001). "The Decline of English Sentencing Stories and Other Stories". in Tonry, M. and Frase, R.S. (eds) Sentencing and Sanction in Western Countries, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Baumann, Jürgen; Weber, Ulrich; Mitsch, Wolfgang (2003). Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. Bielefield: Gieseking Verlag.
- Chemerinsky, Jeffrey M. (2009). "Counting Offenses". Duke Law Journal, Volume 58, 709-746.
- Hall, Daniel E. (2015). Criminal Law and Procedure. 7th Edition, Cengage Learning: United Kingdom.
- Goldman, Alan H. (1979). "The paradox of punishment". Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9, pp. 42-58.
- Freiberg, Arie; Fox, Richard G (2014). Fox & Freiberg's sentencing: state and federal law in Victoria / Arie Freiberg. Third edition, Pyrmont: Lawbook Co.
- Köhler, Michael (2013). Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil (Taschenbuch). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
- Leo Zaibert (2006). Punishment and retribution. Aldershot: Ashgate.
- Roxin, Claus (2003). Allgemeiner Teil. Band II: Besondere Erscheinungsformen der Straftat. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
- Siegel, Larry J. (2016). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. 12th edition, Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning publisher.
- Thomas, D. A. (1979). Principles of sentencing: The sentencing policy of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. London: Heinemann.
- Wessels, Johannes; Werner Beulke (2007). Allgemeiner Teil: Die Straftat und ihr Aufbau. Heidelberg: Müller Auflage.
- Zedner, Lucia; Roberts, Julian V. (2012). Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth. London: Oxford University Press.