Guardianship over the minors until the age of puberty is the responsibility of the paternal grandfather, the guardian, trustee and ruler, and this guardianship depends on the absence of corruption and harm, compliance with the principles of life and expediency for minors, and the only thing that limits the authority of the guardian is the expediency of the minor. Therefore, in his actions and decisions, he must respect the interests and expediency of the ward. Regarding retribution and criminal crimes, this is expedient in amnesty, retribution and asking for Diya (punitive compensations). From the point of view of contemporary jurists, receiving Diya is often in the interest of the minor, but in some cases, the expedient of the minor may be in amnesty or retribution. The purpose of the research is to explain the ideas of contemporary jurists. In this research, in a descriptive and analytical way, we deal with the issue of minor's expediency from the point of view of contemporary jurists. If a child is killed as a result of an intentional or unintentional crime, the guardian has the right to retaliate, take Diya or pardon, but if the crime against a minor is assault and battery, which causes retribution or Diya, the Islamic Penal Code is silent on this matter and according to Article 167 of the Constitution, one should refer to the famous fatwa of jurists. as a result In the case of retribution, the guardian's right to pardon is not fixed, and regarding remission the Dyia, the guardian only has the right in the cases where it is   for the minor's benefit, not for himself. But, contemporary jurists have different opinions regarding the expediency of the minor.