Components of the New Approach to the Role of the Judge of Execution of Criminal Sentences

Punishment and its execution have consistently stood as some of the most complex and controversial aspects of criminal justice throughout the evolution of criminal law. From early legal systems to modern frameworks, the enforcement of penalties has always raised numerous philosophical, legal, and practical questions. In contemporary criminal law, punishment is not merely a final outcome of the judicial process but is recognized as one of the most critical phases in the broader criminal justice system. It is no longer seen as a purely administrative follow-up after the sentencing, but as an integral part of the criminal proceedings. In practice, the implementation phase represents the point at which the coordinated efforts of various components of the criminal justice system— including law enforcement, judiciary, correctional institutions, and other actors—converge to enforce the punishment on the convicted individual. This stage not only involves the execution of a court order but also reflects broader societal objectives, including deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the protection of public interests. Moreover, the execution stage directly affects the rights and dignity of the convict as well as the interests of victims and society. Given this importance, the execution of criminal sentences has increasingly become a focus of scholarly debate and legislative reform. Modern trends emphasize that this phase should not be purely mechanical or punitive; rather, it must be humane, individualized, and oriented toward the long-term goals of social reintegration. The humanization of punishment is a growing theme in comparative criminal law, highlighting that punishment serves its purpose best when it contributes to preventing reoffending and restoring social order, not merely causing suffering and social exclusion. Some advanced legal systems, such as that of France, have introduced significant structural reforms to elevate the execution phase to a judicial process. In this model, the “Sentence Enforcement Judge” is not merely an executive authority, but a judicial authority with real powers. This judge can interpret, modify, or adapt the sentence execution according to the individual circumstances of the convict, progress in rehabilitation programs, and the requirements of justice and proportionality of the sentence. A notable feature of the French system is the authority granted to the sentence enforcement judge to adjust certain aspects of a punishment without returning the matter to the sentencing court. This approach reflects a recognition that sentencing should not be static or identical for everyone; rather, it should be flexible and responsive to the individual situation of the convict and the needs of public safety. In practice, such discretion allows for conditional release, sentence modification, and the use of alternatives to imprisonment in appropriate circumstances. The model also relies on the principles of restorative justice, which aim to repair the harm caused by the crime and reintegrate the offender into society. By placing the judge at the center of the sentence enforcement phase, the process of sentencing goes beyond mere administrative formalities and aligns with the principles of fairness, humanity, and individualization of punishment. Rehabilitation programs, vocational training, and psychological counseling often become central components of the sentence, and the sentencing judge oversees these elements to ensure that they are in the best interests of both the convict and society. By contrast, in many other legal systems, including Iran, the execution phase is largely administrative in nature. Although the responsible official may hold the title “Judge of Sentence Enforcement,” the role is often limited to overseeing formal and administrative aspects of the execution of sentences. Independent judicial discretions is minimal, and decisions rarely adapt to the evolving conditions of the offender or society. As a result the system relies too much on formality and formalism, and opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration are not fully realized. These limitations pose significant challenges. Without meaningful judicial oversight, the execution of sentences may fail to account for individual differences among offenders, and opportunities for parole, suspension, or alternatives to incarceration will not be used effectively. Modern criminal justice theories increasingly support the idea that effective sentence enforcement requires trained, empowered judges who can respond to real-world complexities rather than apply rigid rules mechanically. Scholars and reform advocates have suggested several measures for improvement. First, specialized and ongoing training should be provided to sentence enforcement judges, focusing on psychology, criminology, and restorative justice principles. Second, the law should expand their powers to make decisions tailored to the individual circumstances of the convicted person. Third, the justice system should actively support rehabilitation programs, community sanctions, and alternatives to incarceration in safe conditions. In summary, the execution of criminal punishments is far more than the mechanical fulfillment of a court ruling. It represents the stage where justice is either completed or undermined, depending on how thoughtfully and fairly it is conducted. Legal systems that treat this phase as a core judicial process—rather than a mere administrative duty—are more likely to achieve the deeper goals of criminal justice. By granting real judicial powers, promoting individualization of punishments, and integrating rehabilitation programs, the criminal justice system can serve both the interests of society and the convicted individual, and bring punishment to its true purpose: justice, restoration, and sustainable social stability.