General pathology of Protective and monitoring pre-trial orders in Iran and USA

Abstract

The legal systems of Iran and the United States have fundamental differences in criminal security orders and judicial supervision. This difference is also observed in the general harms governing criminal security orders and judicial supervision. This study uses a descriptive, analytical, and comparative method to examine the pathology of criminal security orders and judicial supervision in Iran and the United States, and the results of the study are inter-explanatory. The root of the harm to judges' freedom of action in issuing criminal security orders lies in the legislative use of general concepts such as "disturbance of public order." In both countries, there is no precise and specific criterion and indicator for observing "proportionality" in issuing orders, and for this reason, we witness the issuance of different orders in similar situations, which undermines the criminal justice system and calls it into question by the general public. The lack of use of light and oath-based orders in Iran is considered a significant harm that has led to excessive use of bail and detention orders. In the United States, discrimination in cases of issuing temporary detention orders is strongly observed, and temporary detention orders are issued to minorities and blacks in proportion to the population. In the area of ​​bail, the greater emphasis on monetary bail has led to the bail funding order becoming a commercial mechanism that is contrary to the high goals of criminal proceedings.