نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، حقوق کیفری و جرمشناسی، دانشکده حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار، گروه حقوق کیفری و جرمشناسی، دانشکده حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. (نویسنده مسؤول)
3 استادیار، گروه حقوق کیفری و جرمشناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکزی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Justification of punishment has been considered for a long time by the two theories of punitiveness and utilitarianism; The theory of punitiveness puts moral order as the principle and considers the criminal to be punished due to endangering it. On the other hand, the theory of utilitarianism puts benefit as the principle and considers punishment as necessary in order to prevent the occurrence of crime in the future and to guarantee more happiness for the members of the society by imposing suffering. In the meantime, considering that the developments of the present era have led to changes in the structure of societies and sometimes, the effectiveness of punishments in society has decreased or changed it; Therefore, punishment techniques have also changed compared to the past, and social punishments and alternative punishments of imprisonment in many cases, instead of classic punishments like imprisonment; Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the current conditions on the one hand and the new punishments on the other hand, to measure the justification of the new punishment in the framework of these two theories; Therefore, this article investigated this issue with the descriptive-analytical method and library tools and reached the conclusion that both theories can be valid in justifying the new punishments; But due to the focus of these punishments on benefit, the theory of utilitarianism has more dominance over punitiveness.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)