Note: The issue of criminal maturity is one of the challenging topics in Iran’s judicial system, with numerous ambiguities regarding the age of criminal responsibility, the concept of maturity, and its criteria. In this session, prominent scholars such as Dr. Seyed Hossein Hashemi and Dr. Hojjatollah Fathi provided a detailed analysis of this topic, exploring its jurisprudential, legal, and narrational dimensions.
The 216th scientific session of the Jurisprudence, Judiciary, and Criminal Law Group of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, held in collaboration with the General Judiciary of Qom Province, took place on Wednesday, 12 Shahrivar 1404 (3 September 2025) at the institute’s premises in Durshahr, Qom. The session’s theme was “Examination of the Jurisprudential and Judicial Dimensions of Criminal Maturity” and was attended by professors, researchers, and judicial authorities of the province.
At the beginning of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Dr. Gholamreza Peyvandi, the session’s chair, extended congratulations on the occasion of the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal and the anniversary of the Imamate of Imam Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance). He expressed gratitude for the cooperation of the General Judiciary of Qom Province in organizing this scientific session and emphasized the importance of the topic of criminal maturity in Iran’s judicial system, noting that it entails numerous ambiguities and challenges requiring thorough examination.
In the continuation of this specialized session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Dr. Seyed Hossein Hashemi, Associate Professor at Mofid University, began his presentation by outlining his research background on criminal maturity since the late 1370s (1990s), noting that extensive studies on this topic were scarce prior to that time.
He emphasized the importance of the age of maturity in Iran’s criminal laws and referred to Article 146 of the Islamic Penal Code, which states that minors lack criminal responsibility, with the age of puberty set at 9 lunar years for girls and 15 lunar years for boys. Dr. Hashemi added that other signs of puberty, such as menstruation and other criteria, have not been explicitly addressed in the law, leading to challenges in determining criminal responsibility.
He then explored the jurisprudential and narrational roots of the concept of maturity, explaining that some jurists, such as Allama Hilli, defined maturity in a general sense as the opposite of insanity. However, this definition differs from the modern understanding of criminal maturity. The Associate Professor at Mofid University noted that narrations such as “weak” and “foolish” have been used to indicate a lack of criminal maturity, forming the basis for some jurisprudential perspectives.
He also referred to Feiz Kashani’s view on the relativity of maturity, stating that maturity varies depending on the individual and circumstances, and distinctions are observed between the age of responsibility for religious obligations and criminal matters. However, jurisprudential arguments by scholars like Sahib Jawahir and Sheikh Ansari emphasized no differentiation in age for religious and criminal obligations, while others, such as Sheikh Saduq and Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, advocated for different ages for various obligations.
One of the key points in Dr. Hashemi’s presentation was the division of puberty into several stages: puberty for religious duties (such as prayer), puberty for readiness to fast while preserving health, physical and psychological puberty for healthy marriage, and maturity for economic, financial, and criminal matters. This classification, derived from the views of the late Ayatollah Makarem, aligns significantly with jurisprudential narrations.
He further highlighted the role of intellectual maturity or rational development in criminal responsibility as a significant topic, citing Quranic and narrational arguments as well as the opinions of prominent jurists such as Shahid Thani and Ayatollah Khoei. He explained that criminal maturity refers to the ability to discern between good and bad behavior and recognize the criminal nature of an act. Insanity and lack of rational discernment are factors that negate criminal responsibility.
In this regard, the term “perfection of intellect,” mentioned in legal provisions such as Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code, encompasses not only puberty and rational maturity at the age of religious obligation but also includes individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, the precise interpretation of the age of maturity remains a subject of debate and disagreement.
Another topic discussed was cognitive and psychological maturity, as raised by experts in empirical sciences. According to this perspective, cognitive maturity is completed around the age of 16, while psychological maturity and rational development continue until around the age of 22. These differences have posed challenges for lawmakers and jurists in determining precise criteria for the age of criminal responsibility.
In the continuation of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Dr. Hojjatollah Fathi, a faculty member of the Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought, discussed the Criminal Procedure Law of 1392 (2013) and referred to Article 315, which states that provincial criminal courts, in addition to handling crimes committed by individuals over 18, are also responsible for addressing crimes committed by adolescents under 18. Drawing on his experience with juvenile criminal cases, he outlined factors that negate criminal responsibility, such as self-defense, minority, insanity, and intoxication.
Regarding minority, insanity, and intoxication, Dr. Fathi explained that under the new law, intoxication negates criminal responsibility only when the individual is entirely deprived of free will to the extent that they lack responsibility. He cited examples of murder cases involving claims of intoxication or drug use, noting that forensic experts conduct thorough examinations in such cases.
The discussion of Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Law and Iran’s commitments to the Convention on the Rights of the Child was another significant topic. The faculty member of the Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought emphasized that this article explicitly addresses issues such as understanding the nature of the crime, the prohibition of the act, and the maturity and intellectual perfection of adolescents. He added that criminal maturity differs from civil maturity, and since 1392 (2013), the criterion of criminal maturity has been considered a benchmark for determining criminal responsibility.
In the concluding section, he addressed jurisprudential and legal disagreements regarding the criteria for rational maturity in adolescents, emphasizing that in some cases, judges determine maturity and the understanding of the crime’s nature, while in others, forensic experts’ opinions are required. He cited examples of judicial cases where rulings were upheld by the Supreme Court.