Challenges of Iran’s Judicial Criminal Policy in Ḥadd Crimes and Proposed Solutions

Abstract

The enforcement of ḥudūd punishments in the Iranian legal system, as one of the most significant manifestations of Islamic criminal policy, has consistently been accompanied by both theoretical and practical challenges. On the one hand, the necessity of safeguarding divine limits as the realization of Sharia-based justice, and on the other hand, humanitarian, social, and international considerations, have given rise to serious disagreements regarding the interpretation and implementation of these punishments. In this article, using a descriptive–analytical method, the concept and jurisprudential foundations of ḥudūd are first explained, and then the existing challenges in their enforcement within the Iranian legal system are examined. The findings indicate that ambiguity in determining the precise instances of ḥadd crimes, the overlap between ḥudūd and taʿzīrāt in certain cases, differences among jurists regarding the conditions for proving these crimes, and the tension between the full implementation of ḥudūd and contemporary human rights standards constitute the most significant challenges in this field. Finally, solutions such as revising evidentiary regulations, clarifying the boundaries between ḥudūd and taʿzīrāt, and strengthening a collaborative approach among jurisprudential, judicial, and executive institutions are proposed. The ultimate objective of this study is to present a model capable of maintaining a balance between preserving Islamic legal rulings and achieving criminal justice that is proportionate to contemporary social conditions.