Judicial Reform, Affective Process, and Judge’s Knowledge
This chapter examines the final version of the penal code, passed only in 2013. Since just after the Iranian Revolution, this is the first set of transformative revisions in substantive criminal law. The chapter outlines how the “coloring in” of the code compels judicial officials to consider alternative approaches to sanctioning. The courtroom serves as a space in which the state, through its judicial officials, corrals victims' instincts for revenge. As an affective space, the courtroom also conditions how judges reason and inflects subjectivities of all the parties in the courtroom. By serving in the role of arbiter in the ultimate settling of accounts, the state's aim is to contain extrajudicial violence. It does this, in part, by attending to the victim's need for justice, or rather, through providing an outlet for a “healthy” emotional response to an injury—the desire for retaliation. Judges attempt to make victims whole and reestablish their sense of lost dignity. However, members of the judiciary are aware of the risk to the foundational impartiality of the system and the stature of the judges should they press victims' families too hard, particularly during the merits phase of the case.
Princeton Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.