An Examination of Judicial Practice and Iran’s Legislative Criminal Policy Regarding Offenses Against Public Morality, with Emphasis on Iran’s Criminal Procedure Code of 2013

Abstract

The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical method, examines judicial practice and Iran’s legislative criminal policy toward offenses against public morality, with particular emphasis on Iran’s Criminal Procedure Code of 2013. Islamic criminal policy with respect to these offenses is based on strict evidentiary standards, concealment of the offense, and the prevention of disclosure of the crime by the offender, the public, and the judge. This policy is grounded in the Lawgiver’s emphasis on prohibiting the dissemination of immorality and applies primarily to offenses against public morality committed in private. This is because such offenses, on the one hand, fall within the scope of crimes subject to the doctrine of ḥaqq al-nās (private rights) and, on the other hand, require the preservation of the dignity and elevated status of the victim’s honor. However, organized offenses against public morality are excluded from this policy due to their role in spreading immorality within society. In drafting the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013, the legislator adopted the principle of prohibiting investigation as the general rule and specified the cases in which investigation is permissible. Under the law, adjudication of these offenses, due to the risk of spreading immorality, must be conducted directly by the court; nevertheless, judicial practice indicates that, in certain cases, investigations are carried out at the prosecutor’s office. Accordingly, in an effort to align with Islamic criminal policy, the legislator in the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 declared the principle of prohibiting prosecution and investigation of these offenses and permitted them only in exceptional circumstances. These are cases in which the public interest in prosecution and investigation outweighs the interest in concealment of the offense, while at the same time subjecting such permission to specific conditions. These limitations have been imposed from various perspectives, including exceptions to the principle of prohibition of prosecution and investigation, the competent authority for prosecution and investigation in exceptional cases, the scope of judicial discretion, and related matters.