شناسایی مجازات جرایم مربوط به مواد مخدر درکشورهای اسلامی و کشور های غیر اسلامی.

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 هیئت علمی گروه حقوق دانشگاه اصفهان

2 گروه حقوق دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

جرم انگاری مواد مخدر و آثار اجتماعی ناشی از آن یکی از مهم ترین مباحث مورد بررسی و پژوهش در سال های اخیر بوده است. مبارزه با این پدیده در طول تاریخ اکثرا با جرم انگاری آن و وضع مجازات های سنگین همراه بوده است اما در چند دهه ی گذشته راهکارهای جدیدی برای مبارزه با مواد مخدر و آفت اعتیاد در کشورهای توسعه یافته مطرح شده که نتایج قابل توجهی از اعمال این روش ها ی جدید حاصل گشته است. از جمله ی این روش ها جرم ندانستن مواردی مانند حمل مواد مخدر یا خرید و فروش آن است. البته آنچه باید مورد توجه قرار گیرد وابستگی نتایج به عوامل متعدد است و این که بگوییم آمار های ارائه شده از موفقیت برخی از کشورهای اروپایی در کنترل اعتیاد صرفا به دلیل اعمال روش هایی مانند عدم جرم انگاری مواد مخدر است صحیح نیست. هدف این مقاله آشنا شدن با قوانینی است که سایر کشور ها در ارتباط با مواد مخدر اعمال میکنند و هم چنین نتایج این قوانین مورد بررسی قرار میگیرد. روش جمع آوری اطلاعات در این مقاله منابع کتابخانه ای بوده و از مقالات و کتاب های نوشته شده در این زمینه استفاده شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


  1. اردبیلی، محمدعلی، حقوق جزای عمومی1، ج1، تهران: نشر میزان، 1392.
  2. بوشهری.دکتر جعفر.حقوق جزای 7.حقوق جزای فرانسه.تهران.شرکت سهامی انتشار.1390
  3. پوربافرانی، حسن و امین مسائلی.تحلیل کیفرشناسی مجازات اعدام در قانون مبارزه با مواد مخدر.فصلنامه ی مجلس و راهبرد.سال بیست و چهارم. شماره ی 91.پاییز 1396
  4. ساکی.دکترمحمدرضا.جرائم مواد مخدر از دیدگاه حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین الملل .تهران.نشر خط سوم.1386
  5. قربانی، ابراهیم و همکاران.بررسی تطبیقی قانون مبارزه با مواد مخدر،پیش ساز ها و روان گردان ها ی ج.ا ایران با برخی کشور های همسایه. فصلنامه علمی ترویجی مطالعات بین المللی پلیس.سال ششم.شماره 26.تابستان 1395
  6. مرتضوی.سعید.قاچاق مواد مخدر و روان گردان.تهرن.انتشارات مجد.1388
  7. نجفی ابرندی.دکتر علی حسین.مقاله سیاست جنایی.مجله تحقیقات حقوقی.انتشارات دانشکده حقوق شهید بهشتی. ش 11و 12.انتشارات شفق.
ب منابع لاتین

  1. Community Justice Services Division of the Scottish Government (2010), Review of the drug courts in Glasgow and Fife Sheriff Courts, Scottish Government.
  1. Costa, A. (2013), On the frontline: Europe’s drug deal (full debate), Euronews, April 10.
  2. Council of the European Union (2012), EU Drugs Strategy (2013–20), (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:402:0001:0010:en:PDF).
  3. Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2010), Review of the drug treatment court (http:// www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/(WebFiles)/ E933AACE944EB4038025784F0043FD2F/$FILE/Review%20of%20Drug%20Treatment%20 Court.pdf).
  4. Drug Policy Alliance (2011), Drug courts are not the answer: towards a health-centered approach to drug use, (avialable at http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugcourts).
  5. Eley, S., Gallop, K., McIvor, G., Morgan, K. and Yates, R. (2002), Drug treatment and testing orders: evaluation of the Scottish pilots, Scottish Executive Social Research.
  6. EMCDDA (2003), Young people and drugs: a legal overview (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html. cfm/index5175EN.html)
  7. EMCDDA (2009), Selected issue: Sentencing and other outcomes, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  8. EMCDDA (2011a), Annual report 2011: the state of the drugs problem in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. I EMCDDA (2011b), Drug policy profiles: Portugal, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  9. EMCDDA (2012), Social reintegration and employment: evidence and interventions for drug users in treatment, EMCDDA Insights 13, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  10. EMCDDA (2013), PDU (Problem drug use) revision summary (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_218205_EN_PDU%20revision.pdf).
  11. EMCDDA (2015), European drug report: trends and developments, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  12. European Commission (2007), Communication from the Commission on the 2007 Progress Review of the implementation of the EU action plan on drugs (2005–2008) (COM/2007/0781 final) (available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0781).
  13. Hall, W., Babor, T., Edwards, G., Laranjeira, R., Marsden, J., Miller, P. et al. (2012), ‘Compulsory detention, forced detoxification and enforced labour are not ethically acceptable or effective ways to treat addiction’, Addiction 107(11), pp. 1 891–1 893.
  14. Holloway, K., Bennett, T. and Farrington, D. (2008), Effectiveness of treatment in reducing drugrelated crime, Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm.
  15. Home Office (2011), Operational process guidance for implementation of testing on arrest, required assessment and restriction on bail (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-testing-onarrest-guidance)
  16. Hough, M., Clancy, A., McSweeney, T. and Turnbull, P. (2003), The impact of drug treatment and testing orders on offending: two-year reconviction results, Home Office.
  17. Hughes, C. and Stevens, A. (2010), ‘What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs?’, British Journal of Criminology 50, pp. 999–1 022.
  18. Hunter, G., McSweeney, T. and Turnbull, P. (2005), ‘The introduction of drug Arrest Referral schemes in London: a partnership between drug services and the police’, International Journal of Drug Policy 16(5), pp. 343–352.
  19. Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (2015), Technical report on alternatives to incarceration for drug-related offences, Organization of American States, Washington, DC.
  20. Kerr, J., Tompkins, C., Tomaszewski, W., Dickens, S., Grimshaw, R., Wright, N. et al (2011), The dedicated drug courts pilot evaluation process study, Ministry of Justice (available at https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-drug-court-process-evaluation).
  21. McSweeney, T. (2008), Quasi-coerced treatment of adult drug-dependent offenders: findings from a survey conducted in the Pompidou Group’s member states, Council of Europe, Strasbourg (http:// www.coe.int/T/DG3/Pompidou/Source/Activities/Justice/P-PG-CJ_2008_15rev1_en.pdf).
  22. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D., Eggers, A. and MacKenzie, D. (2012), ‘Drug courts’ effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults’, Campbell Systematic Reviews 8(4) (available at http://www. campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/74/).
  23. Obradovic, I. (2012), Évaluation des stages de sensibilisation aux dangers de
  24. ’usage de produits stupéfiants, OFDT, St Denis. I Peters, R. S. (1966), Ethics and education, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London.
  25. Pollack, H., Reuter, P. and Sevigny, E. (2011), If drug treatment works so well, why are so many drug users in prison? NBER working paper 16731, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, United States.
  26. Powell, C., Christie, M., Bankart, J., Bamber, D. and Unell, I. (2011), ‘Drug treatment outcomes in the criminal justice system: what non self-report measures of outcome can tell us’, Addiction Research and Theory 19(2), pp. 148–160.
  27. Rabbitte, P. (2009), Drug treatment court at risk (http://www.labour.ie/press/2009/11/26/drugtreatment-court-at-risk/). I Reitox national reports (2011), available at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications.
  28. Robertson, A. (2013), ‘Opposition politicians angered by decision to close Fife drug court’, The Courier (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/opposition-politicians-angered-by-decision-toclose-fife-drug-court-1.88432).
  29. Rossman, S., Roman, J., Zweig, J., Rempel, M. and Lindquist, C. (2011), The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: executive summary (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237108.pdf).
  30. Schaub, M., Stevens, A., Berto, D., Hunt, N., Kerschl, V., McSweeney, T. et al (2010), ‘Comparing outcomes of ‘voluntary’ and ‘quasi-compulsory’ treatment of substance dependence in Europe’, European Addiction Research 16, pp. 53–60.
  31. Skodbo, S., Brown, G., Deacon, S., Cooper, A., Hall, A., Millar, T. et al (2007), The drug interventions programme (DIP): addressing drug use and offending through ‘Tough Choices’, Home Office (http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081023092008/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/ horr02c.pdf).
  32. Sondhi, A., O’Shea, J. and Williams, T. (2002), Arrest referral: emerging findings from the national monitoring and evaluation programme, Home Office (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20090504160525/http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugsalcohol/drugsalcohol56. htm).
  33. Soulet, M.-H. and Ouveray, K. (2006), QCT Europe final report: constructing, producing and analysing the qualitative evidence (https://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/the-quasicompulsorytreatment-of-drug-dependant-offenders-in-europe-qct-europe.aspx)
  34. Times of Malta (2014), White Paper proposes faster decision-making on drug cases, (http://www. timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140707/local/white-paper-proposes-faster-decision-making-ondrug-cases.526715).
  35. United Nations (1961), Single convention on narcotic drugs (https://www.unodc.org/pdf/ convention_1961_en.pdf).
  36. United Nations (1971), Convention on psychotropic substances (https://www.unodc.org/pdf/ convention_1971_en.pdf).
  37. United Nations (1988), Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (https://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf).
  38. United Nations (1990), United Nations standard minimum rules for non-custodial measures, United Nations, New York.
  39. United Nations (1998a), Commentary on the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances 1988, United Nations, New York.
  40. United Nations (1998b), Declaration on the guiding principles of drug demand reduction, United Nations, New York.
  41. United Nations (2005), International Narcotics Control Board Report 2004, United Nations, New York.
  42. United Nations (2008), International Narcotics Control Board Report 2007, United Nations, New York.
  43. UNODC (2007), Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on alternatives to imprisonment, United Nations, New York.
  44. UNODC (2009), World drug report 2009, United Nations, New York.
  45. UNODC (2010), From coercion to cohesion: treating drug dependence through health care, not punishment, United Nations, New York.
  46. USGAO (2011), Adult drug courts (available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-53).
  47. Ward, T. (2011), ‘New look drug treatment court offers hope for the future’, Courts Service News 13 (available at http://www.courts.ie).
  48. Commission on Narcotic Drugs (2012), Resolution 55/12: ‘Alternatives to imprisonment for certain offences as demand reduction strategies that promote public health and public safety’, Report on the fifty-fifth session (13 December 2011 and 12–16 March 2012), Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 2012, Supplement No 8, United Nations, New York.
  49. Commission on Narcotic Drugs (2015), Resolution 58/5: ‘Supporting the collaboration of public health and justice authorities in pursuing alternative measures to conviction or punishment for appropriate drug-related offences of a minor nature’, Report on the fifty-eight session (5 December 2014 and 7–19 March 2015), Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 2012, Supplement No 8, United Nations, New York.