چکیده:
Punitive reactions to crime, which had been eroded under the influence of reformist movements in criminal law, have been revitalized since the 1970s. The revival of this approach has not only been influenced by theoretical efforts to explain the necessity of returning to the theory of deterrence of punishments with minimal reforms, but is also a result of the failure of the rehabilitation system—which had manifested through various reforms and initiatives in criminal law systems—and fundamental criticisms regarding its functioning. Accordingly, strict criminal policy, as a reasonable choice and an appropriate response to increasing crime rates, widespread social insecurity, and especially the pervasive feeling of insecurity, has gained attention and has been met with significant reception in many countries. The adoption of this approach and the effort to operationalize its dimensions not only indicates a turning away from many theoretical developments in the foundations of criminal law but also leads, on the other hand, to the abolition and dissolution of some rehabilitative institutions and the revival of some obsolete methods, which in any case makes studying it more necessary. In this article, while briefly examining the causes of the emergence of this policy, its most important and prominent dimensions, which sometimes have distinct symbols in Iranian criminal law as well, are studied.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Accordingly, in addition to the methods mentioned here, other examples of a criminal policy based on severity can be studied in institutions such as intensive supervision1, shock probation2, shock incarceration3, boot camps4, and the adoption of measures such as reducing welfare facilities, prison rehabilitation, reducing the age of criminal responsibility, predicting the possibility of trial without a jury, reducing the scope of the presumption of innocence, the acceptance of the presumption of guilt by the offender and consequently creating conditions for a deal between him and the prosecution (plea bargaining5), and others.
, and initial results indicate successes that reflect an increase in the ability to detect the delinquency of repeat offenders, a reduction in the time interval between the commission of the crime and the discovery and arrest of said offenders, and an increase in the possibility and duration of their punishment; so much so that with the implementation of 11 professional criminal prosecution programs and the arrest of 585 offenders, the average detention time until their case was settled was estimated at 48 days, the conviction rate at 59 percent, and the average term of imprisonment at 12 years (Petersilia 1989, p.
Therefore, for example, in the state of "Nevada," the implementation of the three strikes law is possible twelve years after the offender has been sentenced to the punishment for the recent crime and must serve it.
(
, 
, 
)
