مشروعية السلطة العقابية للدولة في حال عجزها عن الوفاء بالتزاماتها الاجتماعية والاقتصادية

Jihad Mohammad Alkiswani

doi:10.35516/Law.2025.11678

Authors

Jihad Mohammad Alkiswani Criminal Law Department, Faculty of Law, Al-Quds University, Palestine https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5953-9824

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35516/Law.2025.11678

Keywords:

Legitimacy of punishment, preservation of interests, criminal policy, mutual obligations, social contract, justice of punishment.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to highlight the boundary between the state’s legitimate authority to impose punishment and the loss of that legitimacy when individuals and groups suffer poverty, marginalization, lack of social justice, and unequal opportunities. When the state fails to meet its social and economic obligations, its right to punish loses both moral and legal justification.

Methods: The research relies on the deductive approach, starting from the principles governing the state’s rights over individuals and the individuals’ right to exemption from punishment when the state fails its duties. The cognitive approach was also used through observing legal realities and judicial practices.

Results: The study shows that the state prioritizes its right to punish over its duty to provide a crime-free environment. Institutions rarely connect crime motives to sentencing individualization, while the principle of legality remains paramount. As a result, punishment continues even when crimes stem from the state’s failure to fulfill its social and economic responsibilities, raising questions about its moral legitimacy.

Conclusion: The state’s right to impose penalties still enjoys absolute legitimacy, especially in justice institutions viewing the criminal system as fully coherent. This calls for the state to meet its economic and social obligations to grant moral legitimacy to its penal actions, adopt economic assistance measures to prevent institutional collapse, and balance legal principles with reality, ensuring laws are applied logically rather than rigidly.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdel Hamid, I. A. (1978). Preventive measures in criminal law. Faculty of Law, Shendi University.

Abdullah, D. A. (2009). Criminal policy in the Jordanian penal code (1st ed.). Dar Wael for Publishing and Distribution.

Al-Khalaf, A. H., & Al-Shawi, S. (1982). General principles in criminal law. Ministry of Higher Education.

Badawi, M. (1965). Law, crime, and punishment in French social thought. National Criminal Journal, 8(1), 1–41.

Boujabout, M. (2018). State violence or societal violence: A study in the epistemology of the concept between scenarios of the state of law and the higher interest of the state. Generation of Human Rights Journal, 29, 95–112.

Boukaibat, A. (2019). Civil society and authority (1st ed.). Alpha Document Publications.

Mabrouk, A. H., Khalil, S. M., & Hadi, M. M. (2023). The impact of interest on punishment in legal legislation: A comparative study between Iraqi and Jordanian law. Iraqi University Journal, 63(3), 98–116.

Mohamed, I. S. A. E. D. (2022). The principle of legitimacy and its sources in Islamic jurisprudence. Journal of Legal and Economic Thought, 1, 465–492.

Mohamed, M. (2004). The discretionary power of the criminal judge. Journal of Research and Studies, 1.

Mustafa, A. A. (2020). The legislative philosophy of restricting the state's right to punish: The crimes of request and permission as a model. Journal of the College of Law for Legal and Political Sciences, University of Kirkuk, 5(20), 444–494.

Naguib, H. M. (1995). Explanation of the Criminal Procedure Code (3rd ed.). Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya.

Qader, A. M. (2020). Balancing interests in criminal law: A comparative study (1st ed.). Arab Center for Publishing and Distribution.

Said, A. A. (2004). Images of contemporary material tyranny. Al-Iman Library.

Srour, A. F. (1972). Fundamentals of criminal policy. Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya.

Srour, A. F. (2010). The three circles of criminal legitimacy. The intermediate in penal law, general section (6th ed.). Al-Ahram House.

Tawfiq, M. (2023). The principle of non-impunity for war crimes and the effectiveness of criminal justice in its application. Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, 8(3), 903–921.

United Nations. (2008). The Hyogo framework for disaster preparedness for effective response: A set of guidelines and indicators for implementing the fifth priority of the Hyogo Framework 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters.

مراجع باللغة الإنجليزية:

Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.

Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American challenge. Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1990). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Maqlid, Trans.). National Development Center. (Original work published 1975)

Hegel, F. (1974). Principles of the philosophy of right (T. Sheikh Al-Ard, Trans.). Publications of the Ministry of Culture. (Original work published 1820)

Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1797)

Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government. Awnsham Churchill.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

Shichman, R., & Weiss, A. (2022). Sending a message or seeking retributive justice? An experimental investigation of why people punish. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 100, 101918.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

Ward, T., & Langlands, R. L. (2008). Restorative justice and the human rights of offenders: Convergences and divergences. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(5), 355–372.

French Reference

Sirey. (1936). Croyance morale et règle juridique. In Le droit, la morale et les mœurs.