عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Background and objectives: Response to flagrant criminal incidents is a duty of the governments for the citizens' security of life and property against criminals. In the Iranian legal system where the judicial institutions are responsible for the prosecution of criminals, in cases where an immediate response is required and there is no access to the judicial authorities, by recognizing the examples of flagrant crime the legislator has the duty to make decisions and take the necessary measures to prevent the escape of criminal and preserve the evidence of crime to non-judicial authorities without recognizing threat or violation of civil rights, it has doubled the state officials' concerns who are responsible for securing citizens, that is where violations of individual and collective rights and freedoms via immediate decision-making and urgent response of non-judicial authorities is more possible.
Methodology: In this article, an attempt has been made to answer the posed questions with regard to the legal norms of the two countries and by analyzing regulations it has addressed the way of responding a flagrant crime.
Findings and results: In the UK, Police have the possession of defendant's deprivation of liberty without a court order before, during, and after all crimes, regardless of the time between the commission of the crime and its notice, and in the indictable offence, citizens can arrest the suspects and committer merely during or after the crime. The existence of reasonable suspicion and the possibility of its broad interpretation in major crimes like terrorist offenses and its restricted interpretation in common crimes and possession of individuals' deprivation of liberty and restrictions on their movement before crime for the police in the legal system provide a better provisions for execution of security-based criminal policy and in total the balance between the right to security and the right to supply.