Adducibility to cultural norms in sentencing; Comparative study in judicial system of Iran, USA and Germany

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

2 Ph.D. Candidate in Criminal Law and Criminology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Adducibility to cultural norms is created, when criminalization system and cultural norms are in opposite. According to this approach, when an act is criminalized and it is advised according to some special cultural norms, adducing of defendant to cultural norms in different steps of criminal process, creates a concept which is called Adducibility to Cultural Norms. This research by using qualitative models and case study method, tries to evaluate the role of Adducibility to Cultural Norms in sentencing in judicial systems of Iran, USA and Germany. Findings of this research show that in Iranian penal system, Adducibility to cultural norms is not used in hadd and qesas punishments. While it is usable for ta’ziri offences. The current approach of the German legal system with accepting of Adducibility to Cultural Norms, has limited it. In the US criminal justice system, extreme attention to cultural norms has caused its acceptance in criminal process stages. While the studied legal systems are representative of three legal system (Islam, Common law and Roman-German), Adducibility to Cultural Norms usually a cause for minimum punishment. It should be noted that in the Iranian legal system, it is adduced to ta’zirat offences.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

الف) فارسی و عربی
1. اردبیلی، محمدعلی (1392)، حقوق جزای عمومی، چاپ سی و پنجم، تهران: نشر میزان.
2. دانش‌ناری، حمیدرضا (1392)، رویکرد کثرت‌گرایی فرهنگی به تفسیرهای قضایی از قوانین کیفری، پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق جزا و جرم‌‌شناسی، تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
3. سلیمی، رسول (1391)، جمعیت­شناسی، چاپ نخست، مشهد مقدس: انتشارات آستان قدس رضوی.
4. گلدوزیان، ایرج ( 1384)، بایسته­های حقوق جزای عمومی، چاپ دهم، تهران: نشر میزان.
5. محمودی جانکی، فیروز (1388)،  نظام کیفردهی، هدف‌ها و ضرورت‌ها در تازه­های علوم جنایی (مجموعه مقالات)، جلد نخست، چاپ نخست، تهران: نشر میزان، ص 667- 688.
6. مهرا، نسرین (1389)، رهنمودهای تعیین مجازات در انگلستان و ولز، فصلنامۀ حقوق دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 40، شمارۀ 3، ص 335- 353.
7. نوربها، رضا (1389)، زمینۀ حقوق جزای عمومی، چاپ بیست و ششم، تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
8. عاملی، شیخ حر (1400)، القواعد و الفواید، جلد دوم، چاپ اول، حکیم، سید عبدالهادی، مفید، نجف.
ب) خارجی
9. Agence France Presse, ‘Neun Jahre Haft für Ehrenmord in Esslingen. Gericht Bleibt Knapp Unter Höchststrafe’, 11 April 2005, www.123recht.net/article. asp?a=12657&p=1
10. Böhmecke, M, (2005), Studie: Ehrenmord (Tübingen, Terre des Femmes,
11. Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Namen der Ehre. Dokumentation des Öffentlichen Fachgesprächs vom 13. April 2005(Berlin, Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, 2005), www.gruene-bundestag.de/cms/publikationen/dokbin/89/89963
12. Bushway, Shawn and Anne Morrison Piehl,(2007),  The Inextricable Link Between Age and Criminal History in sentencing,Crime and  Delinquency journal, ( 53), pp 156- 183
13. Boots, Denise Paquette, John K. Cochran, Kathleen M. Heide, (2003), Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations, Journal of Criminal Justice vol 31 , issue 6, pp 553- 565
14. Dhami, mandeep,( 2005), From Discretion to Disagreement: Explaining Disparities in Judges’ Pretrial Decisions, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, , (23, 3), pp 367- 386
15. Fleiner ,Thomas et al, (2013) ,Constitutional Democracy in a Multicultural and Globalised World, second published, springer publishing,
16. greenwalt, kent,( 2013),  The Cultural Defense: Reflections in Light of the Model Penal Code and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, OHIO STATE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, vol 6: 299, pp 299- 321
17. Hostettler,John,( 2013), the criminal Jury old and now, second published , Waterside press
18. kymlicka, will,(2014),  multiculturalism: success, failure and future, queen university, second published,
19. Louis, C, ‘Kampf der Tödlichen Ehre’ in Emma (Köln, Nov/Dec 2004), www.emma.de/561.html
20.——,(2009),  The cultural defense, challenging the mono cultural paradigm, 2090291_CULDIV.book
21. maier,sylva,(2009), honor killings and the cultural defense in Germany, in multicultural jurisprudence, edited by Marie-Clarie Foblets and Alison Rentlen, hart publishing,
22. Rentlen, Alison,(2009),  the use and abuse of cultural defense,, in multicultural jurisprudence, edited by marie-clarie foblets and Alison rentlen, hart publishing,
23. Song, Sara,(2007),  justice, gender and the politics of multiculturalism, Cambridge university press,
24. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2012
25. United Nations General Assembly, Working Towards the Elimination of Crimes Against Women Committed in the Name of Honor, Report of the Secretary- General, UN GAOR 57th Session, UN Doc A/57/169 (2002)
frauenrechte.de/tdf/pdf/EU-Studie_Ehrenmord
26. Von Bullion, C, ‘In den Fängen einer Türkischen Familie’, Süddeutsche Zeitun,munchen, www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt4m2/ausland/artikel/ 506/48458/
Comparative Law Review
Volume 7, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2016
Pages 533-549

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics