ارزیابی تطبیقی مجازات «حبس» در حقوق کیفری مدرن و فقه امامیه

∴ Introduction
The genesis of Iran's encounter with modern legal principles can be traced back to the Constitutional Revolution of the early 20th century [Enghelab-e Mashrooteh], a period that heralded significant legal and political reforms aimed at dismantling the autocratic governance structures of the time. The revolution catalyzed the introduction of Western legal concepts such as law, parliament, and constitution into the Iranian socio-political lexicon, laying the foundation for a new legal order. This order was characterized by the amalgamation of religious decrees with modern legal structures, a process that, while innovative, was not devoid of challenges. The crux of the issue, as identified in the current research, lies in the hasty and uncritical adoption of these new legal concepts without a thorough understanding of their theoretical, philosophical, and historical underpinnings. This oversight has precipitated a crisis of theory and practice within the Iranian legal system, manifesting in conceptual ambiguities and operational inefficiencies. At the heart of this research is the reevaluation of the punishment of imprisonment, a fundamental concept in criminal law, through a comparative lens focusing on modern criminal law and Imamia jurisprudence.
∴ Research Question
The research is driven by the imperative to scrutinize the punishment of "imprisonment" within the context of Iran's hybrid legal system, specifically examining how this form of punishment is conceptualized, rationalized, and implemented in modern criminal law vis-à-vis Islamic law. The overarching question guiding this inquiry is: How does the comparative analysis of the punishment of imprisonment in modern criminal law and Islamic law illuminate the theoretical and practical discrepancies in the Iranian criminal law, and what implications do these findings have for the evolution of a more coherent legal framework?
∴ Research Hypothesis
The hypothesis underlying this research posits that the theoretical and practical dissonance observed in the application of imprisonment in the Iranian legal system stems from a fundamental misalignment in the criminal rationalities governing modern criminal law and Islamic law. This research suggests that while modern criminal law predominantly views imprisonment through the lens of disciplinary power aimed at the normalization and psychological correction of the criminal for societal reintegration, Islamic law approaches punishment with a focus on the spiritual and moral rehabilitation of the individual, emphasizing the afterlife and the perfection of the human soul. This divergence, it is hypothesized, results in fundamentally different implementations of imprisonment, with the modern approach prioritizing correctional normalization, and the Islamic approach advocating for the preservation of the individual's moral agency and freedom.
∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable
To explore the delineated research question and hypothesis, the study employs a multifaceted methodological approach that combines doctrinal research with inductive, interpretive, and argumentative analysis. This methodology is predicated on an extensive review of philosophical texts, legal treatises, and jurisprudential discourse from both the modern and Islamic legal traditions. The framework for this comparative study is structured around identifying and analyzing the differences in criminal rationality between modern criminal law and Imamia jurisprudence and how these differences manifest in the conceptualization and practice of imprisonment.
     A critical component of this methodology involves examining the evolution of the modern prison system, particularly its emergence as a mechanism of disciplinary power in the modern era, aimed at seizing the individual’s soul and will for the purpose of societal normalization. This analysis is juxtaposed with the examination of imprisonment within Imamia jurisprudence, where the focus is on penal correction with an emphasis on moral and spiritual rehabilitation, highlighting a significant departure from the modern system's focus on psychological correction and normalization.
     Furthermore, the research methodology includes a critique of the existing theoretical and practical frameworks within which imprisonment is situated in the Iranian legal system, arguing that a neglect of the nuanced differences in criminal rationality has led to the uncritical adoption of modern penal practices that may not align with the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of Imamia jurisprudence. Through this comparative analysis, the study seeks to unearth the theoretical and practical implications of these differences, offering insights into how a more informed and theoretically coherent approach to the punishment of imprisonment could be developed within Iran's legal system.
∴ Results & Discussion
The findings of the study illuminate a significant divergence in the conceptualization and application of imprisonment between modern criminal law and Islamic law. Modern criminal law, with its roots in disciplinary power, seeks to reform the criminal by targeting the soul and will, aiming for normalization within society. This approach signifies a qualitative shift from physical to psychological modes of punishment, where the prison becomes a space for the psychological transformation and normalization of individuals. The emphasis is on altering the criminal's personality and psychological structure in relation to their crime, marking a profound intensification of power that penetrates the deepest layers of individual identity.
     Contrastingly, Islamic law offers a fundamentally different perspective, viewing punishment as a means to achieve the perfection of the human soul and maintain civil order, grounded in the attainment of afterlife happiness. This system prioritizes the individual's freedom and moral agency in accepting Islamic law and self-correction. Punishments, including imprisonment, are framed as corrective measures that deprive the individual of certain freedoms only to the extent necessary for societal protection and personal purification from sin. The emphasis is on voluntary correction and spiritual discipline, with non-penal institutions like repentance playing a significant role in the penal rationality.
     The discussion of these findings highlights the theoretical and practical challenges posed by the hybrid nature of current Iranian legal system, which incorporates elements of both modern and Islamic law approaches to punishment. The research underscores the importance of penal rationality in defining the effectiveness and ethical grounding of penal institutions. Without a clear alignment with a coherent penal rationality, the legal system risks perpetuating theoretical confusion and practical inefficiencies.
∴ Conclusion
The study concludes that the current form of imprisonment in the Iranian legal system represents a critical juncture between two divergent penal rationalities. The acceptance of modern imprisonment practices, characterized by an emphasis on psychological normalization, does not necessarily represent a more humane approach to punishment but rather a shift in the focus of disciplinary power from the body to the soul. This shift, while reducing the physical harshness of punishments, intensifies the control over the individual's identity and autonomy.
     In contrast, the Islamic penal system, as understood through Islamic law, offers a vision of punishment that centers on the spiritual and moral rehabilitation of the individual, respecting their freedom and capacity for self-correction. This approach aligns punishment with broader ethical and spiritual objectives, such as the preservation of fundamental human interests and the perfection of the human soul.
     The research calls for a critical self-awareness within the Iranian criminal law system to reconcile these divergent penal rationalities. It poses pressing questions about the future direction of Iran's penal system: should it adhere more closely to the principles of Islamic law, or continue incorporating aspects of modern penal rationality? The exploration of these questions requires further investigation into the social, cultural, and legal feasibilities of adopting either penal rationality more fully.
     This conclusion serves as a call to action for legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to engage in a deeper examination of the foundational principles guiding punishment in Iran. By contemplating the possibilities for embracing either Islamic  law or modern penal rationality, future research can pave the way for a more coherent, just, and effective legal system that respects both the individual's dignity and societal needs.