Examining the Challenges of Developing Alternatives to Prosecution and Investigation in the Criminal Law of Iran and England

Upon the confirmation of a criminal offense, the public prosecutor, as the prosecuting authority, must decide whether to initiate public prosecution. In this regard, two major approaches exist: the principle of legality in prosecution and the principle of expediency in prosecution. Based on their criminal justice policy, and taking into account the circumstances, criminal trends, and the overall cultural context of society, states may adopt one or both of these approaches. In English law, it is widely accepted that criminal prosecution is based on the principle of expediency. Accordingly, alternatives to criminal prosecution have a more prominent presence in the English legal system. As a result of various studies conducted during the drafting of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacted in 2013, certain aspects of these alternatives were incorporated into Iran’s legal framework. However, these alternatives have not been adequately developed. The lack of development in this area is due to a multitude of barriers. Identifying these barriers and offering solutions to overcome them—through a comparative perspective with English law—justifies the necessity and objective of this study. Such a comparative examination may contribute to a transformation in Iran’s criminal prosecution system through the application of alternative mechanisms. These barriers can be categorized into two main types: theoretical challenges, such as the lack of conceptual frameworks or intellectual foundations for implementing alternatives, and practical challenges, including the absence of functional mechanisms for enforcement. Specific examples include a lack of attention to the objectives of punishment, a prevailing punitive culture, restricted authority of law enforcement officers, and disregard for the individual characteristics of offenders at the initial stage of criminal proceedings. The remainder of this article explores these challenges in the development of alternatives to investigation and prosecution in the criminal justice systems of Iran and England.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.61838/jecjl.3.1.7
Primary Topic
Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examining the Challenges of Developing Alternatives to Prosecution and Investigation in the Criminal Law of Iran and England

Seyed Mehdi Mansouri, Alireza Mohammad Beiki, Mohammad Hossein Pooya Sirat
The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law
Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
article

Examining the Challenges of Developing Alternatives to Prosecution and Investigation in the Criminal Law of Iran and England

Seyed Mehdi Mansouri, Alireza Mohammad Beiki, Mohammad Hossein Pooya Sirat
article en

Abstract

Upon the confirmation of a criminal offense, the public prosecutor, as the prosecuting authority, must decide whether to initiate public prosecution. In this regard, two major approaches exist: the principle of legality in prosecution and the principle of expediency in prosecution. Based on their criminal justice policy, and taking into account the circumstances, criminal trends, and the overall cultural context of society, states may adopt one or both of these approaches. In English law, it is widely accepted that criminal prosecution is based on the principle of expediency. Accordingly, alternatives to criminal prosecution have a more prominent presence in the English legal system. As a result of various studies conducted during the drafting of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacted in 2013, certain aspects of these alternatives were incorporated into Iran’s legal framework. However, these alternatives have not been adequately developed. The lack of development in this area is due to a multitude of barriers. Identifying these barriers and offering solutions to overcome them—through a comparative perspective with English law—justifies the necessity and objective of this study. Such a comparative examination may contribute to a transformation in Iran’s criminal prosecution system through the application of alternative mechanisms. These barriers can be categorized into two main types: theoretical challenges, such as the lack of conceptual frameworks or intellectual foundations for implementing alternatives, and practical challenges, including the absence of functional mechanisms for enforcement. Specific examples include a lack of attention to the objectives of punishment, a prevailing punitive culture, restricted authority of law enforcement officers, and disregard for the individual characteristics of offenders at the initial stage of criminal proceedings. The remainder of this article explores these challenges in the development of alternatives to investigation and prosecution in the criminal justice systems of Iran and England.

The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and LawVol. 3(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Examining the Challenges of Developing Alternatives to Prosecution and Investigation in the Criminal Law of Iran and England — Seyed Mehdi Mansouri, Alireza Mohammad Beiki, et al. · The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS