Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD student in Criminal Law, Criminology, Islamic Azad University, Qom Branch, Qom, Iran.
2
Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Qom Branch, Qom, Iran.
3
Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Law, Faculty of Theology, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran. Qom: Iran.
Abstract
Criminal and harmful behaviors in the field of education and training that violate the right to education necessitate a specific response from criminal policy. The primary question addressed in this study is: What is the response of Iran’s criminal policy to crimes and deviations in the educational sphere, and what challenges does it face? Employing a library-based descriptive-analytical method, this research seeks to provide solutions to improve the implementation of the right to education in the Iranian legal system. The response of criminal policy to the violation of this right is categorized into criminal and non-criminal measures. Due to the dominance of the principle of minimalist criminal law in Iran’s policy, criminal responses are limited, primarily relying on two offenses: “preventing education” and “violating the right to education” pursuant to Article 570 of the Islamic Penal Code. The most significant administrative response is the annulment of regulations that conflict with the right to education, based on Article 30 of the Constitution and Article 12 of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Administrative Court of Justice. An examination of the challenges reveals that criminal sanctions are applied mainly to individuals who prevent children and adolescents from receiving education, while the criminal liability of legal entities and the State is often overlooked. This minimalist approach has led to impunity for many criminal and deviant behaviors, preventing full criminal protection. Furthermore, civil and administrative enforcement guarantees rely on general rules of civil liability, which presents significant obstacles; specifically, the impossibility of determining the exact type and amount of damage, the ambiguity regarding the perpetrators of the damage, and the often irreparable nature of losses caused by the violation of the right to education. It is suggested that the response to these phenomena be organized within the framework of a differentiated procedure for all types of crimes and deviations to fully realize the positive effects of education.
Keywords
Subjects
