Abstract
Looking to the penalty as the mutual face of the crime is a mere interpretation of the crime’s elements though it does not mean that the concept of mutuality is among the punishment’s purposes. As the encounter is a mere legislator point of view method of reaction against crime but it is not a goal. As the justice is for punishment which cannot be fulfilled as long as alteration of the human behavior within the society is the main goal of the punishment. Hence, the basic of the legislator point of view in adopting some punishments which affect human rights which its deprivation has Effective and real impact that proportionate with the criminal character personality and the nature of the act he committed. It is the appropriate solution to whoever committed such acts. Therefore, its impact is much further than what can be gain from other punishments weather corporal or financial or incarceration regardless to its severity may not be adequate with the criminal character or may not have the same affects as those fulfilled by the punishments related to his acquired rights gained because of citizenship or humanity As most of the penal legislations stipulated civil deprivation as a supplementary punishment, weather Subordinate or complementary, to other fundamental punishments, however, some of them, in addition to the above nature, stipulated such punishments as a fundamental. So, if the civil deprivation is a penalty by which the convict to be prevented from practicing specific rights, so it should be always considered criminal. The issue which is most important that it is a fundamental punishment that most legislations link it with political crimes as related with the honor and dignity, which means it is the most proper penalties for such crimes.