نگرش های مختلف درباره اصل بی گناهی
What are the different attitudes about the principle of innocence in Iran and Western counties?
Perhaps, one of the most important legal pillared discussed controversially is the principle of innocence in the court. The attitude is raised differently, while the vast range of scholars are proponents remarkably.
Iran and Islamic legal system support the principle of innocence structures are extracted from a mix of both Iranian conventions and cultures and Islamic notions, where as a high prominence of such religious ideas have not been articulated yet. Such a new-found legal dominance has been discussed by lawyers and legal academics about ti what extent this deeply conflated approach between Iranian and western notion is to attract public and legal community consideration.
Some authors point out that this approach has been imposed by Islamic point’s more than Iranian cultural scion-legal regulations. Meanwhile, this highly structured principle causes a myriad of regulations. Hence, this is noticeable that this formidable principle is not possible to be abdicated or abridged. Consequently, it has been transformed in to an archetype.
The mind of a judge has been criticized dive to his or her arid judgment or accuse ationfor abusing judicial power, if this vital rule has been ignored. Therefore the majority of lawyers and judges believe profoundly that this norm is an indispensable part of the justice and blended intricately with freedom and fairness like a woven fabric.
Last but not least, it is worth mentioning that an accused person showed not give any legally accepted document or evidence approving his innocence. In Islamic and Iranian legal regime, this is a highly recommended responsibility of plaintiff in order to approve the guilty. Meanwhile, no one is legally and logically allowed to accuse others committing crimes or torts without any logical acceptable evidence. This is the meaning of the principle of innocence fully accepted by judicial rules in Iran. In addition, such a necessity has been planned in trading legal knowledge in order to teach in law colleges and faculties. In Iranian judicial body, this rule has been applied in all steps of processes in different courts including appeal and supreme courts and tribunal.
The story is not different completely in western countries. In these communities like Iranian legal system, the obedience of this rule is legally forced. In contrast with Iranian structure excusing it from an origination of human freedom extracted from divine doctrine, western system claims the lack of attention to this principle leading to legal socio autocracy in a unlimited manner. Hence the expanded performance of this principle is prescribed in order to remove judicial barriers. The western lawyers seriously admonish the governments in order to regulate by a full attention of such an idea. As a result, they believe it leads to social alacrity.
In other words, all western legal communities including common law and Roman systems insist on this grave approach in conformity with the principle of innocence. This is a robust rule to notify all audiences in a judicial session to consider this rule. If not, the judgment leads to a wrong unjustified conviction or a provisional order critically. Therefore, this will be conceived as a serious violation of the appropriate fundamental conduct supposed to apply in a judicial fair and just judgment. Meanwhile, this rule has been ratified vastly in constitutional laws and reaffirmed in criminal codes as well as enforceable verdicts issued by the supreme courts. It is clear that there is no difference about perpetrators and offenders or regarding firs offence, drug offenders or any heinous crimes.
As well, it is necessary to apply about torts.
The western approach discusses the necessity of this norm originated from social perspectives alternatively. Therefore, lawyers believe that has been ignored, social injustice would have been perpetuated. Meanwhile, they believe it is likely to occur an irrovakble mistake to manage individuals and social levels. Hence, people cannot trust judicial system, if judicial body cannot perform this principle fully. This is, consequently, to make a vicious circle. Hence, lawyers and other judicial professionals attempt to persuade law makers to regulate tis rule is all codes of rules and conducts.
Having cited above points, I believe strongly that in Iran and western countries, the principle of innocence has been fully nominated as a legal fundamental rule. Nonetheless, its legal and logical origination has been discussed differently. Whereas, the difference about its origins is important, this principle has been raised as a legal criterion to assess the verdicts and judicial functions presenting and approving about to what extent the right of freedom is respected constitutionally.