Talk:History of the judicial system of Iran

What a terrible article

This is an unbelievably bad article. There are serious factual errors. It is clearly written by an incompetent and biased American or British person, because it seems to think that "inquisitorial courts" are an evil, non-western idea, whereas they are the dominant form of court in the West! It is only common law countries that go for the "adverserial system". Other manifest errors and generalisations abound. What a disgrace. Someone needs to de-politicise this article and incorporate some actual facts. There are comments about shi`a fiqh here that, to anyone even mildy acquainted with the subject, immediately expose the author(s) as a superficial hack.

The courts of the Islamic Republic differ from Western courts in that the judge serves not only as judge but as prosecutor, jury, and arbiter; the system is a form of the inquisitorial system.

where does it suggest that non-Western is bad? Where does it suggest there is something wrong with the inquisitorial system?

PS put your comments at the end of the page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion needed

There is no mention of basic aspects of the Iranian judicial process, such as the four types of courts, or many interlaying assemblies that aim to ensure checks and balances. Basic information can be incorporated from Iran but a general expansion is needed. freestylefrappe 02:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Execution of children

Apparently an anonymous contributor doesn't like the following accurate, referenced information and keeps deleting it. I am therefore labeling the article as non-eutral until this is resolved on this talk page. --> [Iran] is one of only six nations that executes children for crimes committed when they were under eighteen years old. (As a State party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Iran has undertaken not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under the age of 18, but continues to carry such executions out. [1].)<-- - Outerlimits 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Your history in this article speaks for itself. You are here to bash Iran not contribute to Wikipedia. I also suspect that you are a homo who views this execution as an attack on homos. Unlike your CLEAR LIE, Iran dit not say FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER THE EXECUTION that they had raped a 13-year-old. This was already a published case in Iran and I had personally followed up on it. You on the other hand, are simply picking up anti-Iranian propaganda in the Western media, and are adding a bit of your own to it, participating in the avalanche build-up. Fact is, the vast majority of Iranians approve of such punishements any time, regardless of their ideological viewpoints, hands down.

And how, exactly, does that impact on whether Iran has carried out its committment not to execute people for crimes committed when they were less than 18 years old? P.S. Flame down on the name calling, please. - Outerlimits 06:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Iran has not, and cannot, possibly commit to such an agreement. If Iran had agreed to such an International "agreement" you had better believe it would have been the hottest national topic for the longest time. Iran has no problem executing an 18-year-old who has commited a crime that by Iranian law should get execution as punishment, regardless of whether in some (as you called it) "civilized nations" 18 is by definition a "child". And as an Iranian, I thank God for that. Also, to talk about "teenagers" in terms of Iran, is just laughable beyond belief. Did it not even occur to you that the word "teenager" has to do with the fact that the numbers thirteen through nineteen in THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE end with "teen"?! I can't think of a more stupid way to group human beings together, let alone exporting that concept to other nations whose language is not even English. So if a 19-year-old kills a human being he should get away with it because the word for his age in English ends with "teen" but a 20-year-old should pay for it dearly?! My god, you people are comedians.

Follow the link. Iran has indeed made such a committment, though it has not honoured it. And no, one doesn't "get away" with murder if a punishment less than death is exacted for it. That's a false dichotomy. - Outerlimits 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

USA also has Capital Punishment, and if I am not mistaken, even in USA a teenager can be executed. But whether USA executes teenagers or not is irrelevant, because it is utterly stupid to categorize human beings on the basis of the ending suffix of their age in the English language!! By the way, did you contribute to any article about what USA does to its "muslim terrorist" captives, including "teenagers" in Guantanamo Bay?

Surely no USA injustice, real or imagined, has any bearing on how Iran's actions are to be judged? Don't be so Americocentric. Iran is a signatory to a United Nations document in which it makes a committment not to execute people for crimes committed while they were under age 18. That has nothing to do with word endings in English. - Outerlimits 07:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is in need of facts and many improvements

The lead talks about Ali Akbar Davar and Abdolhossein Teymourtash who are mentioned no where else in the article. When and what they did to establish a judicial system is not described at all. The History section not only doesn't mention them but makes no mention of a secular system under Reza Shah being established, claiming Since the 7th century, although many things have changed in Iran, one thing has remained constant: the concept of Shi’ah Islamic law as the foundation of the Iranian legal system.

As it stands this article is at best misleading.

I've added POV and sources tag to it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Let's keep our eye on it, and if nobody has sources within a reasonable amount of time (everybody defines "reasonable" differently), maybe there should be some selective deletions. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An FYI

I've put in a request to block the anon. IP who's been making racial/homophobic/american/anything-that-isn't-inherently-iranian attacks. Hopefully that'll make discussing this controvertial topic a lot easier. Ironholds 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just realised he hasn't posted in 3 years. Woops! Ironholds 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected Typo

Under the Structure of the judicial system there was a typo where Article 60 was referenced. It is in fact article 160. I went ahead and made the correction. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Tags

Does anyone still have objections that the article is not neutral, needs additional citations, or not represent a worldwide view of the subject? If not I'm going to delete the tags. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Apostasy - Clarity

Currently:

"Apostasy convictions are sometimes meted out not only for openly renouncing the religion of one's birth, but also for criticizing clerical rule..., defaming Islam, conversion from Islam, attempting to lead others away from Islam, among other reasons. As such, the legal definition of apostasy is subject to the individual interpretation of the judge. The traditional definition of apostasy only applies to those who are born into one of the legally recognized religions - Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. The Baha'i faith, for example, is not legally recognized, and the adherents of that religion are considered apostate by virtue."

I'm confused by these phrases, because "traditional apostasy" hasn't been explicitly defined, and "considered apostate by virtue" doesn't make sense. Usually "by virtue" doesn't stand alone like that, it has to be "by virtue of" something. Do you mean Baha'i are automatically apostates from birth? Also, I've read that a fatwa was issued declaring Zoroastrians apostates? But I don't have a very reputable source: http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/jun_2001/zoroastrians_khamenehi_protest_10601.htm --72.205.26.136 (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by a page mover) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Judicial system of Iran → Judiciary of Iran – Standardizing the name of main articles in Category:Judiciaries, also see Category:Judiciary of Iran. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose ambiguous naming wikt:judiciary means the body of judges. While "judicial system" clearly refers to the judicial system and not the body of judges -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: its actually a rather logical move. "Judiciary" means the entire system, not just judges. Its more succinct and can be made uniform across other nation's judiciary pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as ambiguous, and as an attempt to force American English usage of the word "judiciary" onto the relevant articles. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stupid parts of the law

• Women and men split up. Pool shifts or seperate
• Death penalty or amputation penalties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.194.53 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial system of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223044237/http://web.amnesty.org/background/irn-090205-action-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/background/irn-090205-action-eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)