Penal response criminal law means the entry of the state into the sphere individual rights and freedoms, and naturally such an intervention requires legal and rational justification. Punishment is justified when, by choosing appropriate type and amount punishment, it achieves one or more the five theories of punishment - namely: 1) Retributive, 2) prevention, 3) rehabilitation, 4) deterrence, and 5) incapacitation. The choice of each theory affects the legislative strategy and the decision-making method of judges issuing criminal sentences.
This article, using descriptive-analytical method, tries compare the principles punishment and show that the principle of proportionality is based the logic of punishment and emphasizes necessity determining the punishment proportionate the crime. The main goal of this approach deterrence and there is no desire to diversion, decriminalize, or depenalization. The wide range of punishments makes the need for reasoning, citation, and precise judicial justification determining punishment inevitable.
In contrast, the minimal principle lacks a vindictive logic and considers punishment as a means of correction, rehabilitation, and restorative response. This principle seeks to reduce the scope of criminal intervention and, in some cases, to abandon some strict responses. In this approach, due to the limited scope of criminal intervention, a brief and sufficient reference in determining punishment is sufficient. Considering the above-mentioned principles, the present article analyzes the criteria for sentencing and examines the conflicts or overlaps between the proportionality principle and the minimal principle from the perspective of crime-oriented and offender-oriented approaches, and finally proposes a new classification of Ta’zir punishments.