Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Assistant Professor of Public Law at Shiraz University
2 PhD Candidate of Public Law at Shiraz University Graduate of Philosophy at Tehran University
Abstract
Political crime is one of the most contested concepts in criminal law and political philosophy, having undergone substantial transformations alongside shifts in the foundations of political legitimacy. This article traces the historical evolution of political crime—from classical Athens and imperial Rome to the medieval intertwining of church and state, and through to the ideological conflicts of the 19th and 20th centuries—highlighting how dissent has moved from being considered heresy and treason to being (partially) legitimized within modern legal frameworks.
Drawing on the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, particularly his notion of the "general will," the article proposes a new conceptual framework for distinguishing political crime from ordinary offenses. Through an analysis of three main interpretations of the general will—democratic, transcendental, and critical—the author argues that only the critical reading can meaningfully recognize the political dissenter as a legitimate actor rather than a deviant. Within this framework, exceptional trials in political crimes are not only justifiable but essential for preserving political participation and preventing authoritarian closure.
The article concludes by offering a practical model for identifying political crimes and outlining the procedural and penal features of a rights-oriented exceptional trial that safeguards freedom of expression and dissent within the legal order.
Keywords
Main Subjects
Send comment about this article