Predicting criminal reactions (punishments) in relevant laws and their implementation through the judiciary is one of the ways to establish order and security and prevent encroachment on the rights of individuals in civilized societies.

Since the conditions and implementation of punishments – despite the justifications and reasons that require adherence to them – are still considered a harsh and oppressive policy that reflects the rights and freedoms of individuals, advanced and efficient legal systems always address the issue of criminal law at a minimum and exceptional level and gradually take steps towards eliminating and limiting the scope of crimes and punishments.

During this time, a proposal has been suggested in the Islamic Consultative Assembly by some of its representatives, titled “Strengthening Punishment for Collaborators with Hostile Countries against National Security and Interests”. According to Article 1 of this proposal, by removing the crime of espionage or collaboration with hostile countries from the list of disciplinary offenses, it is considered as an act of corruption on earth, as stated in Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code, and is essentially included in the category of “limits”.

As previously mentioned and discussed under the title of “Execution; Deterrence or Intimidation” (1), the nature of the ultimate punishment (execution) prevents the use of legal measures such as postponement of punishment, suspension of punishment, reduction of punishment, and other legal mitigating factors (which are provided for in disciplinary punishments) and makes this harsh and irreversible punishment be implemented with severity and inflexibility.

Such strictness and intensity in action currently lacks justification and acceptable necessity, and what has been mentioned in the introductory justification of this plan by its proposers is also insufficient and merely reflects the sectional and group interests and objectives of the plan’s drafters, and has no relation to the public interests and benefits.

“What has caused wonder and deep contemplation in this plan and has drawn the attention of the public and media is Article 7, which states that any filming or recording of scenes of crimes resulting in murder, life imprisonment, or crimes punishable by amputation or deliberate crimes against physical integrity, or disasters and incidents resulting in death or physical injuries, or terrorist acts, except in cases specified by law, including Article 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code, shall be considered a crime and the perpetrator shall be sentenced to a maximum of five years of imprisonment. Additionally, the dissemination or republication of the aforementioned recorded films or images, whether illegally obtained or legally obtained through surveillance cameras or in any other legal manner, shall be subject to the aforementioned punishment. If these films or images are sent to hostile or foreign networks, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to the maximum punishment mentioned above.”

This controversial issue (especially in the first section) has considered behaviors as crimes and deserving of a fifth-degree imprisonment (more than two to five years), which is commonly practiced by various classes of citizens on a daily basis. However, the public conscience of society is not very sensitive towards it and it is not considered as a violation of existing norms.

In addition, the use of imagery does not have any connection with what has been stated in the introductory justification of the plan by its designers, and this strictness and excessive imposition of restrictions on citizens is devoid of any logical justification. In fact, it can be said that this criminalization in this manner is in conflict with the rights and freedoms outlined in the third chapter of the Constitution and it is expected that even if it is approved by the final vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, it will be criticized by the Guardian Council.

Apart from the fundamental flaw in the principle of the prescribed ruling in this article, its content, which as a ruling deserving punishment, must be clear and as unambiguous as possible, is formulated in such a way that determining its cases and its implementation not only seems difficult for the general public, but also for individuals knowledgeable about legal matters and even lawyers.

Imagine that a conflict is taking place and a person with good intentions and in order to preserve evidence of the crime and, if necessary, present it to the judicial authority, intends to take a picture of it. In such a situation, the person in question must assess the severity and weakness of the criminal behavior taking place and predict the material consequences of it, and then immediately consider the prescribed punishment for the behavior that they intend to photograph. They must then decide whether to take a picture of this scene or refrain from doing so due to the possibility of being accused of committing a crime by the legislator.

In addition, in cases where a person intends to take pictures of accidents and incidents (including car accidents), they will also face this complexity and confusion.

The scope of absolute authority stated in this article, for which no conditions or exceptions have been provided, is such that if it is approved and confirmed with the same quality, not only ordinary citizens, but even journalists and media personnel who film with legal permits will be subject to prosecution.

The final section of this article, which considers sending films or images to “hostile and alien” networks as punishable by law (five years of imprisonment), disregards the unjustified restriction on the free and transparent circulation of news and information. This is due to the fact that the meaning of “hostile networks” mentioned in this article is not clearly defined, and there is no criteria specified in any relevant laws to identify such networks.

In general, it can be said that the plan of “intensifying punishment for collaborators with actions of hostile countries against national security and interests” disregards fundamental ambiguities and flaws, which indicate haste in its preparation and lack of expert consideration, pursues goals that in such a time and with this level and volume of news and information, are outdated and even unattainable. Furthermore, this baseless criminalization, by adding another section of normal citizens’ behaviors to the circle of criminal behaviors, and inflating penal laws, will greatly tarnish the reputation and position of these laws.

Footnote:
1- Rights, kindness, execution; restraint or intimidation, Peace Line Magazine, 13th year, issue 138, November 1401, pp. 45-44.