In European thought, the liberal approach is based on exclusion and, in some cases, the lawful criminality is introduced as an exception, and in the socialist approach the principle is guilty, and the burden of proof of innocence is always on the accusation. The judiciary is also considered in each round in the form of judge's knowledge. In jurisprudential thought, the principle is based on innocence, and exceptionally, the legal norm of the offense is raised in the Lutz case, and there is a significant difference regarding the power and value of the judicial authority in the form of the judge's knowledge of the proof of the religious offenses (right and wrong). The Iranian law of law, which is the result of the Islamic jurisprudential and European jurisprudence, has taken the root of the principle, but has questioned the use of the legal norm of the offense as an exception. At times, he accepted it and, at other times, he was against the constitution. In the case of the presumption, there is no significant difference in the legal status of criminal offenses in determining the amount of punishments, retaliation, and confessions, and there has been a significant difference between the judiciary and the lawyers. This article deals with analytical, descriptive, comparative and critical analyzes.
