The ethical challenges of applying the scapegoat theory in criminal policymaking
Subject Areas : Ethics and Islamic EducationFatemeh Azimi 1 , mohammad mirzaei 2 , Shardad Darabi 3
1 -
2 -
3 -
Keywords: Ethical challenges, scapegoat theory, penal policymaking, judicial justice. ,
Abstract :
Criminal policymaking is always vulnerable to the use of quick and dramatic solutions to respond to insecurity and social crises. The “scapegoat” theory, as a well-known model in criminology, explains how power institutions in crisis situations, by focusing on an individual or group as the “cause” of problems, while diverting minds from the main roots of the problems, create false security and temporary unity around a hypothetical enemy. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, examines the scapegoat theory in criminology and its correlation with the ethical principles governing criminal and penal policymaking in Islam. Its aim is to analyze the ethical challenges arising from the application of the scapegoat theory in the three central dimensions of criminal policymaking (legislation, judgment, and enforcement). The findings of the research show that the application of this theory in all three dimensions of criminal policymaking faces fundamental ethical challenges: in the legislative dimension, it leads to the adoption of discriminatory, hasty, and showy laws that violate the principles of justice, the generality of the law, and the negation of surveillance In the judicial dimension, it subjects judgment to social and political pressures and distorts the principles of impartiality of the judge, the principle of innocence, and the principle of rejecting the limits with suspicion In the executive dimension, it removes punishment from the goal of reform and rehabilitation and turns it into a tool for humiliation and a display of power that violates human dignity even when the limits are applied. From the perspective of Islamic ethics, this approach is in complete conflict with the penal philosophy of Islam, which is based on the principles of justice (Indeed, Allah commands justice), mercy (And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds), and the realization of the five interests of the Sharia (preservation of religion, soul, intellect, offspring, and wealth). The ultimate result of such a policy is the decline of public trust in judicial institutions, deviation from identifying the root causes of crime, and ultimately, the destruction of the legitimacy of the ruling system.
قران کریم
ابن عربی، محی الدین ، (بیتا) فصوص الحکم، دارالکتب العربی، بیروت
آقاجانی، مهدی؛ میر خلیلی، سید محمود؛ حاجی ده آبادی، احمد، (1400)، آسیب شناسی سیاست کیفری ایران در پرتو نظریه قوچ قربانی، نشریه علمی مطالعات حقوقی معاصر، (23)12؛ 210-185
حرانی، ابومحمد،( 1386) . تحف العقول، ترجمه صادق حسن زاده، چ1، نشر ال علی، قم
رضائی تودشکی، حسین؛ مجیدی، سید محمود؛ باقی زاده، محمدجواد، (1402)، جلوه های ظهور جرم انگاری امنیت مدار در جرائم علیه امنیت در حقوق کیفری ایران، فصلنامه پژوهشهای اخلاقی، (13)4؛ 158-137.
طباطبایی، سیّدمحمّدحسین، (1379) تفسیر المیزان، مترجم موسوی همدانی، جلد 13 ، انتشارات دارالکتب الاسلامیه
عزیزی، سمیه؛ میرخلیلی، محمود، (1399)، ارتباط نظریه قوچ قربانی و عوام گرایی کیفری و تأثیر آن بر سیاست کیفری ایران، مجله پژوهشهای حقوقی، (41)11؛ 242-221.
مجلسی، محمدتقی(1403ق) ، بحارالانوار، ج81، موسسه انتشارات وفا، تهران
محضری، فرانک؛ پاکزاد، بتول؛ عالی پور، حسن؛ فرحبخش، مجتبی، (1401)، رویارویي با بزهکاری مهاجران در سیاست کیفری ایران؛ (داشته ها و بایسته ها)، فصلنامه مطالعات فقه و حقوق اسلامی، (29)14؛ 314-277.
محقق داماد، سیدمصطفی( 1391)، قواعد فقه، ج4، چ12، نشر علوم اسلامی ، تهران
مطهری، مرتضی ( 1385)، جهان بینی توحیدی، چاپ 26، انتشارات صدرا
مندنی، اسلام، و آشوری، محمد. (1397). تحلیل سیاست جنایی امنیت مدار در پرتو اصول اخلاقی و موازین حقوق بشری. پژوهش های اخلاقی (انجمن معارف اسلامی)، 9(1 )، 183-204.
میلانی، علیرضا؛ اردکانی ارجمند، غلامرضا، ( 1394)، دامنه نفوذ تفکرات امنیت مدار در قلمروی حقوق کیفری ایران، فصلنامه مطالعات علوم اجتماعی، 1(1 )، 33-26.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press. p. 2.
Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2010). The criminal process (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 78.
Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive justice. Oxford University Press. p. 153. Choongh, S. (1998). Policing as social discipline. Oxford University Press. p. 156.
Choongh, S. (1998). Policing as social discipline. Oxford University Press. p. 156.
Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy (pp. 17-30). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24.
Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press. p. 89.
Dyzenhaus, D. (2012). The constitution of law: Legality in a time of emergency. Cambridge University Press. p. 87.
Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474. (
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
Goldsmith, A. (1990). Complaints against the police: The trend to external review. Oxford University Press. p. 112.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An Integrative Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.
Hudson, B. (2006). Punishment and Control: Beyond the New Penology. Punishment & Society, 8(1), 58–62.
Lacey, N. (2016). In Search of Criminal Responsibility: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions. Oxford University Press. p. 54.
Lechte, J. (2025). The Scapegoat: Violence, Law and Origin. Theory, Culture & Society, 02632764251347242.
Ramadan, T. (2009). Radical reform: Islamic ethics and liberation. Oxford University Press.
Simester, A. P., & von Hirsch, A. (2011). Crimes, harms, and wrongs: On the principles of criminalisation. Hart Publishing. p. 42.
Spohn, C. (2015). How Do Judges Decide? The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment. SAGE Publications. p. 78.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press. p. 27.
Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press. p. 15.
Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society: Social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. SAGE Publications. p.8.
