Effective Alternative Models To The Penalties Provided For In The Anti-Drug Law

Abstract

Drug addiction is recognized as a comprehensive individual, family, and social disease that requires a therapeutic and harm reduction approach rather than a purely repressive criminal policy. Iran's anti-drug law relies mainly on severe punishments such as death penalty, long-term imprisonment, flogging, and cash fines, which, due to their disproportionate nature to the perpetrator's personality, human dignity, and human rights standards, have not had a desirable deterrent effect and have even created more social problems. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method and a survey of 185 judges, criminal law experts, and harm reduction specialists analyzed with SPSS software, identified effective alternative models. The findings show that nearly 47% of respondents consider the mandatory treatment approach combined with harm reduction (such as Article 16 centers, methadone/buprenorphine substitution treatment, and supervised medical consumption management) to be the most effective model (mean significance 4.58 out of 5, p<0.001). The public service and educational-therapeutic model is also in the next rank with 28.1%. More than 75% of experts prefer non-custodial and therapeutic approaches, and heavy traditional punishments (death penalty and long imprisonment) are the least acceptable (average 2.19). The current penal policy requires a fundamental review due to the uncertainty of implementation, the unwillingness of judges to issue harsh sentences, and the ineffectiveness in reducing consumption and recidivism. It is suggested that the legislator focus on therapeutic-rehabilitative models and harm reduction in future reforms to both be consistent with the disease-oriented view of addiction and better ensure the security and health of society.