A Comparative Study of the Conditions and Consequences of Flagrant Offenses in Iranian and American Law

Abstract

The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the conditions and consequences of flagrant offenses (caught-in-the-act crimes) in Iranian and American law using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings suggest that such a comparative approach can contribute to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each legal system and offer recommendations for improving domestic legislation. In Iranian law, a flagrant offense refers to a crime for which sufficient evidence of its commission exists either during the act or immediately afterward. Due to its obvious nature, this type of crime necessitates a more expedited investigation and prosecution process. A similar concept exists in American law, referred to as an "open" or "in-progress" crime. In the American legal system, law enforcement officers are authorized to arrest suspects without a judicial warrant, provided there is sufficient evidence of a crime having occurred. The main differences between the Iranian and American legal systems are observable in various aspects, including their approach to flagrant offenses, the authority granted to the police, and the conditions under which an arrest can be made without a warrant. In Iran, Islamic law and religious principles serve as the primary foundation for defining legal frameworks. These laws place significant emphasis on religious and Sharia-based concepts and may sometimes offer specific interpretations of what constitutes a flagrant offense. In contrast, the American legal system is based on constitutional principles and civil rights. In the United States, individual freedoms and civil liberties hold considerable importance, and the laws are structured in a way that seeks to safeguard these rights. For instance, in the U.S., police officers generally require a judicial warrant to make an arrest, except in particular circumstances where the crime is evident and ongoing. Meanwhile, in Iran, police authority may be broader in some cases, and the criteria for warrantless arrests may be defined differently. These distinctions illustrate the influence of culture, religion, and historical background on the legal systems of the two countries and demonstrate how social and political values can shape the legal framework.