The punishment of free public services based on the bill of social punishments instead of prison had found its way into Iran's legal literature; But with the approval of the Islamic Penal Law approved in 2012, it became official. After settling in the legislative system, the next step is to focus on judicial activists and accepting institutions, in order to reform the judicial culture and create executive platforms. On the other hand, the punishment of free public services is applied in the context of society and by using the capacities of civil society, which is a clear symbol of cooperative criminal policy.
After about ten years have passed since the introduction of the free public service penalty into the criminal justice system, this question is raised, to what extent the criminal policies of Iran have performed proportionately with regard to this penalty in the field of criminal justice? In this article, an attempt is made to evaluate the selection model in Iran's criminal law by studying the library and using the opinions issued regarding the penalty of free public services, with a descriptive-analytical method, while examining the types of criminal policy. Also, individual interviews were conducted with the judges of the courts and the execution of the free public service penal sentences and the officials of the receiving institutions in order to use their experiences and identify the practices of this new punishment, which includes 20 active judges in the field of sentencing, 10 judges executing the sentence and 6 The institution is accepting. In community-based punishments, resocialization of the perpetrator through re-establishing social ties is considered as the main goal and reducing the prison population as a secondary goal. This is despite the fact that Iran's criminal policy, regardless of the enforcement aspect of this punishment and the need for trained human resources to monitor and interact with the convicted, has introduced new punishments to replace imprisonment and not as an independent punishment in the criminal justice system. The legislator has not supported the rehabilitation of reformable criminals by limiting the crimes subject to the alternative of imprisonment and by presenting a general model, without determining the role of the judge in verifying the character of the perpetrator. Criminal policy, regardless of restorative justice to reform public opinion and create a culture for social acceptance, has only provided the basis for the use of a limited number of institutions accepting free labor.