جایگاه اصل حداقلی بودن حقوق کیفری در سیاست جنایی

امروزه حقوق کیفری به تنها داروی شفابخش برای درمان بسیاری از ناهنجاری‌های اجتماعی تبدیل شده است. نگاهی به قوانین کیفری نشان می‌دهد که روند رو به رشد جرم‌‌انگاری در سال‌های پس از انقلاب در ایران شتاب بیشتری گرفته است. حجم وسیع قوانین کیفری، نوع و میزان پاسخ‌‌های کیفری و جمعیت کیفری زندان‌‌ها نشان می‌‌دهد که حقوق کیفری در بیشتر موارد بعنوان نخستین راه‌حل قانونگذار دیده شده است. این دیدگاه با جرم‌‌انگاری امنیت‌‌مدار یا حداکثری شناخته می‌‌شود. در مقابل در سالیان اخیر دیدگاه جرم‌‌انگاری حداقلی در حقوق کیفری مطرح شده است. مطابق این چشم‌‌انداز، حقوق کیفری نباید مصادیقی از رفتار را منع کند که برای رسیدن به اهداف الزام‌‌آور دولت ضرورتی ندارد. اگر ابزار و تدابیر دیگر بتوانند راحت‌تر به هدف برسند، ضرورتی برای جرم‌‌انگاری باقی نخواهد ماند. لذا حقوق کیفری باید تنها بعنوان آخرین راه‌‌حل بکار رود. این مقاله، از رهگذر روش توصیفی- تحلیلی، جایگاه اصل حداقلی بودن حقوق کیفری در سیاست جنایی را ارائه کرده تا نگاه کیفرگذاری قانونی و کیفرگزینی قضایی، قلمروی مجاز مداخله‌‌ی کیفری و نیز شیوه‌های کنترل اجتماعی از نوع کیفری و ناکیفری و الگوهای حاکم بر آن مشخص گردد.

the role of the principle of minimality in criminal law within criminal policy

today, criminal law is often viewed as the primary solution for preventing and addressing many social disorders and deviant or antisocial behaviors. in iran, following the islamic revolution, there has been a significant increase in the criminalization and punishment of various activities. the extensive volume of criminal laws, the nature and scope of criminal responses, and the growing prison population indicate that criminal law has become the default response for legislators in many situations. this approach is often referred to as maximal criminalization or security-oriented criminalization. in contrast to this perspective, the notion of minimal criminalization has gained traction in recent years. according to this view, criminal law should not be excessively broad, nor should it criminalize behaviors that are not essential for achieving the state’s binding goals. if other tools and measures can more effectively achieve these goals, criminalization or punishment should not be necessary. thus, criminal law should be seen as a last resort, employed only when other measures are inadequate. the principle of minimal criminalization, alongside other fundamental principles such as the principle of innocence, necessity, and transparency, has been proposed as a constitutional principle. however, this principle has received limited attention from legislators, making its position in criminal policy highly significant.the concept of criminal policy—often associated with social control—is categorized into four models based on the relationship between crime, deviance, state response, and society: crime-state response, crime-social response, deviance-government response, and deviance-social response. these models give rise to various response patterns, including the state pattern, social pattern, integrated pattern, and zero pattern. within the state pattern, two sub-patterns emerge: liberal society and the security-oriented government, each responding to crime or deviance in distinct ways based on their ideological foundations.criminal policy based on the minimal principle advocates for the reduction or abolition of criminal law, replacing it with non-criminal alternatives. this approach favors removing deviant behaviors from the scope of criminal law and avoiding criminal responses for minor offenses. measures like dejudicialization, decriminalization, and depenalization are central to this perspective. governments, in turn, can choose between two criminal policies: a minimalist approach to criminalization and punishment, which prioritizes harm reduction, and a maximalist approach based on legal patriarchy, which focuses on strict government control over crime prevention.the iranian penal system exemplifies the security-oriented government model, which is characterized by broad state intervention in both individual and social life. in this model, the government has the authority to intervene in various aspects of society, often leading to extensive criminalization across all spheres of human interaction. since the islamic revolution, iranian legislators have criminalized a wide array of behaviors, contributing to the inflation of criminal laws and increasing state involvement in the private lives of individuals. this view is reinforced by institutions such as the council for expediency of the system, the executive branch, the assembly of experts, and the guardian council, which expand the scope of criminalization.in contrast, the liberal model limits the scope of criminal law to behaviors that directly harm others and applies minimal intervention, avoiding state intrusion into individuals’ private lives. this model does not criminalize minor deviations from social norms, and it prioritizes the protection of personal privacy.