عنوان مقاله [English]
Most of the studies done on the analysis of the jurisprudential principles of deterrent crimes have legally justified such crimes based on Osūli principles of preventing any corruptive deed (Sade Zaraye'), the obligation of the obligatory introduction and illegality of illegal introduction and so on and so forth. However, they have all ignored this fact that none of the above mentioned principles could not be considered as general rules and thereof are not generalizable to justify the prohibition of deterrent crimes. The significant issue is studying the end of non-permissibility of such crimes and finally proposing a general rule, so that it could be a comprehensive rule for such crimes, as the lack of formulating rules and frameworks in this respect may lead to deprive committers' rights under the pretext of social rights. According to present research findings, non-litigious institution- a phenomenon which fully supported by the legislator- could be the most acceptable criterion for deterrent crimes. Based on this view, bringing order to the society and citizens' affairs and in general, strengthening the regime are considered among Non-litigious affairs which occasionally are fulfilled by preventing the preliminaries and means which pave the ground for other major crimes. Thus, this is the focal point where the crimes are committed. Therefore, according to this criterion, deterrent crime could be changed to a considerable assumption.