چکیده:
Despite the principle of innocence, the adoption of coercive action measures through the intervention of criminal justice institutions in order to prevent the commission of a crime has become one of the basic approaches in the field of dealing with delinquency. This research explains the position of "preventive arrest" as coercive measures in the two legal systems of Iran and England by using descriptive-analytical method and using first-hand library sources. Through a comparative study of this issue, it is clear that in the English legal system, in order to prevent crimes, police officers are allowed to detain people who are trying to commit criminal acts or are suspected of having such a will. In fact, with the expansion of the "security-oriented criminal policy" in this legal system, the powers of the police in depriving people of their freedom have expanded. also in order to prevent the maximum encroachment on the rights of citizens, in addition to the prescription of this type of detention, standards for the basic implementation of this operation have been provided in the British criminal system. On the contrary, in Iran's legal system, referring to Article 43 and 44 of the Criminal Procedure Law, "preventive arrest" is not allowed to bailiffs and the starting point of law enforcement activities is considered to be the commission of a crime and knowledge of it. According to the theoretical findings of the research, based on the British criminal system, in order to prevent the commission of security crimes, the authority of "preventive arrest" should be entrusted to the officers.
خلاصه ماشینی:
A Comparative Study of "Preventive Detention" in the Criminal Law of Iran and England Abdolreza Javan Jafari, 1 Mohammad Noroozi 2 Abstract In view of the presumption of innocence, restrictive measures involving the deprivation of liberty are generally related to the post-commission of a crime; however, the necessity of adopting coercive active measures, which occur through the intervention of criminal justice institutions to prevent the commission of a crime, has become one of the fundamental approaches in the field of combating delinquency.
Through a comparative study of this subject, it is revealed that in the English legal system, in order to prevent the commission of crimes, police officers are permitted to detain individuals who intend to commit criminal acts or are suspected of having such an intention.
Of course, in the book "Criminal Investigation Law," while naming these operations under the title "administrative arrest,"1 it has been stated that in order to prevent the commission of acts that disturb public order but are not crimes, administrative detention of children or the insane can also be pursued (Ansari, 2001: 355).
Resorting to these principles has caused that in the legal system of Iran, which possesses classic and citizen-oriented criminal law, based on the religious government of Hazrat Amir (peace be upon him), where the presumption of good faith towards individuals is central, the flaws of this type of justice cannot be fully observed; such that in it, any kind of preemptive coercive action to prevent the commission of a crime is prohibited.
This issue has been considered in English law; as in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of England, for performing an administrative arrest, at least creating reasonable suspicion in police officers regarding the future commission of a crime is necessary.
(
, 
, 
)
