چکیده:
The Criminal Procedure Law of 2013 aims to safeguard the interests and defense rights of the accused by establishing criteria for fair proceedings. From the legislator’s perspective, access to a lawyer for those accused of intentional murder is an essential requirement, grounded in principles such as equality before the law, prevention of judicial errors, protection against wrongful convictions, and ensuring citizens’ equitable access to justice. However, the substandard performance of public defenders—one form of judicial assistance—has undermined these legislative goals. This article examines and evaluates the effectiveness of public defenders in representing accused individuals in murder cases. Its central question is: What deficiencies impair public defenders’ performance in such cases, and what solutions can address these challenges?To answer this, the study adopts a qualitative approach, analyzing 22 cases of intentional homicide and conducting in-depth interviews with 32 criminal justice stakeholders, including judges, public and private lawyers, police chiefs, and individuals accused or convicted of intentional homicide. The findings reveal significant shortcomings in public defenders’ performance: ineffective and generalized defenses (e.g., accepting charges without contest, passivity toward legal defenses, silence on expert opinions, failure to challenge arrest orders, and reliance on perfunctory or no appeals); frequent absences despite repeated notices; lack of meaningful engagement with the accused; reluctance to confront judges or challenge expediency; and avoidance of negotiations with victims’ families to secure their consent.Addressing these issues requires rigorous oversight of public defenders’ performance, increased financial and institutional support, specialization in public defense, enhanced collaboration between judges and lawyers, and enforcement of professional standards.
خلاصه ماشینی:
From the legislator's perspective, access to court-appointed lawyers for murder defendants is an unavoidable necessity based on foundations such as equality before the law, prevention of judicial errors and the conviction of innocents, and ensuring citizens' fair access to justice.
To answer this question, the research has employed a qualitative approach and has been conducted based on a precise study of 22 murder case files and in-depth interviews with 32 actors in the criminal justice system, including judges, court-appointed and private lawyers, investigative police officers, defendants, and those convicted of murder.
The research findings show that the most important damages related to the performance of court-appointed lawyers are: general and ineffective defense (through accepting charges, passivity towards legal excuses, silence regarding expert opinions, failure to object to detention orders, and refusal of appeal or stereotypical appealing), non-attendance despite repeated warnings, lack of constructive interaction with the defendant, expediency and lack of challenging judges, and avoidance of interaction and negotiation for the purpose of gaining the satisfaction of the victim's relatives.
3. It should be noted that Articles 190 and 384 of the Criminal Procedure Law obligate the judicial authority to appoint a lawyer, but in practice, often to observe justice and create order in the deployment and use of the capacity of all lawyers, correspondence is conducted with the Bar Association or the Center for Lawyers to introduce a public defender.
(
, 
, 
)
