The discourse analysis of the punishment on the verge of Mashruteh era

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Faculty of Law and Political Science Department of Criminal and Criminology Law of Tehran university

Abstract

In the initiation of "Mashruteh Revolution" ,legislators sought to adopt European criminal law and adopt the jurisprudence's view that criminal law was incompatible with jurisprudence. The question about punishments of this era, such as Conte's law, is what discourses were present in the context of the punishments of this era and which discourses dominated the discourse. The main issue of the research is to explain the role and impact of the present discourses in the context of penal developments in Conte's law. This paper deals with the discourse analysis of punishment in Conte's legal booklet using PDAM's qualitative discourse analysis method. The findings of the researcher in this article indicate the presence of three discourses of "criminal modernism", "royal criminal tradition" and "religious criminal tradition" in the context of Conte's criminal booklet developments; The influence of the traditional royal and royal discourse and the cynicism of equality and greed has been sterile. The main components of these three discourses are that the key components of the discourse of "criminal modernism" are rehabilitation and criminal utilitarianism; Is criminal ethics, and the main components of the discourse of the "royal criminal tradition" are the inequality of individuals with regard to the punishment.

Keywords

References

Abraham, Kennth S. (1996). A Theory of Insurance policy Interpreration, Michigan Law Rewiew, Vol. 121, No.4, pp. 531-569.
Burton, Steven J. (2009) Elements of Contract Interpretation, New York: Oxford University Press.
D.k.Srustrova. (1998) Modernization of Inusrance Concepts in China”, Canberra Law Review, Vol. 4, No.1, pp.231-246.
Dudi Shwartez (2008)”Interpretation and Disclosure In Insurance Contracts”, Loyola Consumrt Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.105-154.
Ivamy, Hardy E. (1979) Marine Insurance, London: Butterworths.
Fisher, James M. (1995) ”Why Are Insurance Contract Subject to Specail Rule of Interpretation: Texr Versus Context”, Arizona State Law Journal, No.24, pp.995-1067.
Harof Watson (2006) The Sophiticated Assured Excption To The Doctorine Of Contra Proferentem In Marine Insurance Law, Newsletter, New York,Committee on Marine Insurance and General Averge.
Horton, Divid (2009) ”Flipping The Script Contra Proferentem And Standard Form Contracts”, University of Coloardo Law Review, Vol. 80, pp.1-46.
Miller,David S. (1998) ”Insurance As Contract: The Argument For Aboning The Ambiguty Doctrine”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 8, pp.1849-1872.
Mustill,Sir Michael J. Gilman,Jonathan C.B. (ed) (1981) Arnould’s Law of Marine Insurance And Average, London: Steven & Sons.
Spicer,.Whyle W. (1991) ”CH-CH-CHanges:Stumbling Towards The Reasonable Expection of The Assured in Marine Insurance”, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 66, pp. 457-477.
Swisher,Peter N. (1991) ”Judicial Rationales in Insurance Law: Dusting Off the Formal for the Function”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol: 52, No. 4., pp. 1037-1074.
Swisher, Peter N. (1996) ”Judicial Interpretation of Insurance Contract Disputes: Toward a Realistic Middle Ground Approach”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol.57, pp. 543-636.
Torbert,Preston M. (2014) A Study of the Risks of Contract Ambiguty, Master degree, University School of International Law.
Martorana,Vincent R. (2014) A Guide to Contract Interpretation, 1ndEd.London: ReedSmith.
Ware, Tephen J. (1998) ”A Critique of the Resonabble Expectation Doctorine“, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp.1461-1493.
Wilkerson, Jared (2011) ”Adudicating Insurance Policy Disputes: A Critique of Preofessor Randall 's Proposal to Abondon Contract Law”, Loyola Consurmer Law Review, Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 294-357.
 
Document and Cases:
Adrian Associates, General Contractors v. National Surety Co. 638 S.W.2d 138 (rex. Ct App. 1982).
Atlantic Ca. Ins. Co. v. Value Waterproofing, Inc. 918 F.Supp.2d 243, S.D.N.Y. 2013. January 15, 201
A/S Ocean v. Black Sea &Baltic General Ins. Co Ltd.[1935]51 LL.L.Rep.305(A.C).
Birrell v. Dryer[1884]9 App.cas.345(H.L.)(appeal taken from Scot).
Gibson v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 208 Cal. Rptr. 511, 516 (Ct. App. 1984).
Garcia v.Exhibition Foods, (1986)184 Cal.App.3d.
Hart v.Standard Mar.Ins.Co.(1889) 22 Q.B.D.499
Marine Trasit Crop v. Nothwestren Fire &Marine Ins. Co, 2F. Supp.489.492(E.D.N.Y.1933).
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 126 (1876) (citing I Hargrave Law Tracts 78 (1787).
Olin Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co. 704 F.3d 89 C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2012. December 19, 2012.
Pittson Company Ultrama America v. Allianz Insurance Company, 124F.3d 508(3d Cir.1997).
Senior Housing Capital, LLC v. SHP Senior Housing Fund, LLC Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL1955012 Del.Ch.2013
 
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 38
January 2021
Pages 173-203

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics