Foundations of the Jurisprudential Principle of Individualization of Punishment

Abstract

In the early 19th century, in response to the instability prevailing over punishments, jurists prioritized establishing absolute justice through the widespread uniformity of crime and punishment. This means that they defined punishment solely based on the criminal behavior and action. This approach necessitated the exclusion of factors such as the criminal's personality, their history, or the circumstances of the crime in determining the punishment.Some legal experts believed that justice requires punishment to be attributed to the "crime" rather than the "criminal." However, over time, it became evident that such an approach does not guarantee justice. It is necessary to consider factors beyond the obvious layer of the crime, such as the underlying internal and external factors contributing to the offense. Focusing solely on the surface manifestation of criminal behavior is a superficial approach to justice implementation.These factors led to the principle of individualization of punishment, aiming to tailor punishments to the personality of the criminal and the type of crime committed, entering the legal literature; achieving such proportionality means that judges should not treat all criminals of a single crime uniformly, but rather, considering the social, physical, and mental conditions of the criminal, determine appropriate punishments. Since this principle is traceable in some criminal laws of Islamic countries, research on its jurisprudential foundations is indispensable; research findings indicate that besides narrations that generally confirm this principle, there are other jurisprudential evidences supporting the principle of criminal individualization, and various levels of individualized punishments in Islamic penalties, such as limits and disciplinary measures, are observable. What has been raised as new achievements in legal knowledge has ancient roots in the Imami jurisprudence.