Pathological Analysis of the Judicial Criminal Policy Approach in Iran Regarding the Legal Institution of Mitigating Circumstances of Punishment

Abstract

Mitigating circumstances and their application constitute a highly delicate and intricate area of criminal law, playing a significant role in the rehabilitation and correction of offenders. However, Iran’s judicial criminal policy, rooted in a punitive-oriented framework, shows limited interest in these forms of penal responses, especially when the rehabilitative and reformative aspects of mitigating circumstances are overlooked. This condition necessitates a comprehensive examination and identification of the existing deficiencies and obstacles that hinder the effective application of mitigating circumstances. In light of this, the present study aims to identify the method of applying the legal institution of mitigating circumstances of punishment within the country’s judicial criminal policy, with a specific emphasis on uncovering the barriers to its implementation. The current research is applied in nature and follows a qualitative methodology. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews. The participants included 19 experienced and knowledgeable experts in the field of judicial practice, selected through purposive sampling. Data analysis was conducted using thematic analysis. The findings of this study led to the identification and categorization of four dimensions, 21 components, and 138 indicators relating to the application of mitigating circumstances. An examination of these dimensions reveals a significant correlation between all identified dimensions and the judicial criminal policy process in the implementation of mitigating circumstances. To pathologically analyze the judicial criminal policy approach in Iran regarding the legal institution of mitigating circumstances of punishment, the study utilized data obtained from semi-structured interviews with experts and scholars. The main extracted themes indicate that the behavioral dimension has the most significant influence on judges in applying mitigating circumstances, followed by the structural dimension, and finally, the contextual dimension. Nevertheless, it is evident that these barriers—whether stemming from within or outside the judicial system—are deeply interconnected and continuous. Therefore, addressing these obstacles in the implementation of the aforementioned law requires a balanced approach in both internal and external domains.