Plurality of judges is based on the rationality which is seen in some different systems in a way that a group of judges in the same way and for a single case decide on sentence. Although speaking about plurality of judges or joint judging is not considered explicitly by all Imami jurisprudents but by a survey on reasons of that, it can be understood that jurisprudences have not presented unity or plurality of judges in general. So by bringing these reasons, we can go toward this way of judging. Also by having a survey on the different concepts of sentence and verdicts and also the definition of sentence from the view point of jurisprudents, it can be found out that sentence in spite of its compulsive advisability, does not have generality and it is a way to get to the canonical augment, in this way, there is no difference between unity or plurality of judges in sentencing and even maybe having a joint judging which is the result of the consulting of judges could be more assured
Adibi Mehr, M., Keshavarzei Veldanei, M., & Aghaei Dinanei, R. (2012). A Jurisprudence Survey on Legitimation of Plurality of Judges. Criminal Law Research, 3(1), 1-19.
MLA
Mohammad Adibi Mehr; Morteza Keshavarzei Veldanei; Rashideh Aghaei Dinanei. "A Jurisprudence Survey on Legitimation of Plurality of Judges". Criminal Law Research, 3, 1, 2012, 1-19.
HARVARD
Adibi Mehr, M., Keshavarzei Veldanei, M., Aghaei Dinanei, R. (2012). 'A Jurisprudence Survey on Legitimation of Plurality of Judges', Criminal Law Research, 3(1), pp. 1-19.
VANCOUVER
Adibi Mehr, M., Keshavarzei Veldanei, M., Aghaei Dinanei, R. A Jurisprudence Survey on Legitimation of Plurality of Judges. Criminal Law Research, 2012; 3(1): 1-19.
)