Evaluation of The Role and Position of Dispute Resolution Councils In Iran's Criminal Policy In Comparison with Similar Institutions In The French Judiciary

The Dispute Resolution Council was established as a public institution in the last few decades to reduce the number of cases sent to the judiciary in Iran and strengthen public participation and increase the role of the people in criminal justice policy. Although the activities of this institution in recent years have led to a decrease in the number of cases sent to judicial institutions, but its public aspect was not fulfilled as intended. In addition, the law of this council has many contradictions with the constitution with limitations and problems in the legal and structural field that have affected its functions. However, the role of the people is significant in similar institutions in the legal system of the Common Law and France, while strengthening the participatory aspect. This issue has been an effective measure in strengthening participatory criminal policy in these countries. The purpose of this research was to investigate the criminal policy of the Dispute Resolution Council and similar institutions in France.Keywords: Dispute Resolution Council, French Law, Iranian Criminal Justice Policy Evaluasi Peran dan Kedudukan Dewan Penyelesaian Sengketa Dalam Kebijakan Pidana Iran Dibandingkan dengan Institusi Serupa di Peradilan Prancis AbstrakDewan Penyelesaian Sengketa didirikan sebagai lembaga publik dalam beberapa dekade terakhir untuk mengurangi jumlah kasus yang dikirim ke peradilan di Iran dan memperkuat partisipasi publik dan meningkatkan peran masyarakat dalam kebijakan peradilan pidana. Meskipun kegiatan lembaga ini dalam beberapa tahun terakhir telah menyebabkan penurunan jumlah kasus yang dikirim ke lembaga peradilan, tetapi aspek publiknya tidak terpenuhi sebagaimana dimaksud. Selain itu, undang-undang dewan ini memiliki banyak kontradiksi dengan konstitusi dengan keterbatasan dan masalah di bidang hukum dan struktural yang mempengaruhi fungsinya. Namun, peran masyarakat cukup signifikan dalam lembaga sejenis dalam sistem hukum Common Law dan Perancis, sekaligus memperkuat aspek partisipatif. Isu ini telah menjadi langkah yang efektif dalam memperkuat kebijakan kriminal partisipatif di negara-negara tersebut. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui kebijakan kriminal dari Dispute Resolution Council dan lembaga sejenis di Perancis.Kata Kunci: Dewan Penyelesaian Sengketa, Hukum Prancis, Kebijakan Peradilan Pidana Iran Оценка роли и позиции советов по решению спорных вопросов В уголовной политике ирана по сравнению с аналогичными учреждениями во французской судебной системе АннотацияСовет по решению спорных вопросов был создан как государственное учреждение в последние десятилетия для сокращения количества дел, передаваемых в судебные органы в Иране, и расширения участия общественности и повышения роли общественности в политике уголовного правосудия. Хотя деятельность этого учреждения в последние годы привела к уменьшению количества дел, направляемых в судебные органы, общественный аспект не выполняется должным образом. Кроме того, закон этого совета имеет много противоречий с конституцией с ограничениями и проблемами в правовой и структурной областях, которые влияют на его функционирование. Тем не менее, роль сообщества весьма значительна в аналогичных учреждениях в системе общего права и правовой системы Франции, а также в усилении аспекта участия. Этот вопрос стал эффективным шагом в укреплении совместной уголовной политики в этих странах. Целью данного исследования является определение уголовной политики Совета по разрешению спорных вопросов и аналогичных учреждений во Франции.Ключевые Слова: Совет по решению спорных вопросов, Французское право, политика в области уголовного правосудия в Иране

Moral reasoning and support for punitive violence: A multi-methods analysis

When do residents in communities affected by violent crime support punitive violence? Are they less likely to support harsh punishments when they use moral principles to guide their decisions? Does the use of dehumanizing language to describe criminals predict support for harsh punishments? We document and analyze decisions about responding to crime from 62in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals affected by violence in the Mexican state of Michoacán to address these questions. We conduct a quantitative analysis of how different forms of moral reasoning are related to punishment preferences for specific crime events, and a qualitative content analysis to investigate mechanisms. We find that two types of moral reasoning are particularly associated with support for punitive punishments: “consequentialist” reasoning that involves weighing the costs and benefits of an action, and reasoning that dehumanizes accused criminals. “Deontological” reasoning about the right or just action, while extremely common, is used more equally across arguments for and against punitive violence. Analysis of social media posts of elites provides suggestive evidence that these patterns hold with elites who have more influence on the occurrence of violence events and criminal justice policy. Our results provide micro-foundations for theories that assume that consequentialist decision-making leads to support for punitive violence in high-violence, high-impunity settings, and show how psychological processes like dehumanization can feed into those processes.

4. Shaping the legal system: the role of government

This chapter considers the principal government departments that shape the English legal system. Over the years, the Government has become increasingly involved in the English legal system. The leading department is the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for running and developing the courts and tribunals system. The chapter provides an overview of its functions. It also considers the Judicial Office, the Judicial College, and the Law Commission. The Home Office is responsible for many aspects of criminal justice policy. Mention is also made of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and other central government departments whose work impacts on the legal system.

Building Collaborative Evidence-Based Frameworks for Criminal Justice Policy

Researcher–policymaker/practitioner partnerships (RPPs) have emerged as a successful tool for translating research into policy and practice. However, the available research has focused on RPPs with law enforcement and correctional agencies. Notably absent are studies that describe and evaluate RPPs between researchers and legislative bodies. Specifically, questions remain about the establishment, unique constraints, best practices for effective implementation, and sustainability of partnerships between researchers and policymakers. This study contributes to the literature by describing a unique RPP between a university and a state legislature. Through this retrospective case analysis, we describe the steps taken to initiate the partnership, its implementation, and outcomes. Importantly, in the context of the prior research, we describe the lessons learned, next steps, and implications for partnerships with policymakers.

Exploring criminal justice policy transfer models and mobilities using a case study of violence reduction

Although there is growing interest in criminal justice policy transfer, a dearth of empirical research in this area has been acknowledged. This article addresses this gap by presenting the results of research conducted on a case of policy transfer of a criminal justice programme, focused on group/gang violence reduction, from America to Scotland. Policy transfer models were used to develop, frame and conduct the analysis of what was considered a ‘successful’ programme transfer; however, it was found that no single model could fully account conceptually for a key finding of the research, namely a policy transfer ‘backflow’. This article details the key processes, mechanisms and outcomes of the policy transfer and in doing so reflects on the usefulness of orthodox and non-orthodox/social-constructionist policy transfer approaches in understanding the outcomes of this case of criminal justice programme transfer.

Leaving the Shining City on a Hill: A Plea for Rediscovering Comparative Criminal Justice Policy in the United States

Over the past several decades, American penal exceptionalism—the tendency for U.S. penal policies and practices to proudly diverge from those of other Western countries—has severely limited the development of comparative criminal justice research from a U.S. perspective. However, in recent years, a growing consensus that America’s criminal justice policies and practices are too expensive, ineffective, excessively punitive, and often inhumane has laid the ground for a new phase of soul-searching. This article argues for an explicit rediscovering of comparative criminal justice policy in America, which would prove extremely helpful in providing bold yet practicable solutions in the current commendable but unimaginative era of criminal justice reform. We first contend that American exceptionalism is not as embedded in U.S. penal policy and culture as the past few decades might seem to suggest. Second, we discuss the main causes of the gradual demise of the comparative criminal justice enterprise in America. Finally, we discuss two areas of U.S. criminal justice reform suggesting mechanisms of comparative criminal justice policy that should be nurtured: (1) new prison reform initiatives pointing to renewed openness to comparative insights and (2) the growing chorus calling for prosecutorial reform, showing how many of the reform ideas proffered tap into characteristics found in continental systems.