The comparative study species of penal sanctions from hybridization viewpoint in Iran and French law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD. student Department of Criminal Law &Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science; Shiraz University

2 Associate Professor,Department Criminal Law and Criminology Shiraz University -Shiraz

Abstract

Today, the increasing multiplicity of penal sanctions has doubled the need for a fundamental study of the position of each of them in the sphere of the technique of hybridization penal sanctions. The introduction of security measures with a security-based and incapacitation nature in modern and neoconservative criminal law with the aim of managing career criminals and with a punitive nature illustrates the importance of examining the evolution of the penal sanctions. The reflection of this penal policy, which is itself derived from modern criminal policy, both in formal and substantive criminal law in Iran and France, is in a manner that distinguishes between punishments and security measures and determines the governing legislative philosophy. The educational sanctions, medical writs, and judicial supervision, the postponement of the issuance of verdicts, as well as the guarantee of restorative sanctions, have a security nature and in some cases become sanctions with nature of punishment. Although this policy is aimed at managing dangerous criminals, they differ significantly from the usual definitions and criteria in determining the sanctions. the purposeful criminal policy of the legislature in combining the criminal sanctions can be motivated by simplification of responseو as well as, the policy of dealing with dangerous criminals. we believe both of these characteristics may have an emphasis on the criminal policy of managing dangerous criminals.

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 303-337

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics