Background: From the middle of the eighteenth century, satisfactory solutions were presented to individuals, which, by applying and proving them and the existence of personal and objective conditions, provided the ground for proportionality in criminal responsibility; Meanwhile, the legislator has tried to adapt the barriers to criminal responsibility with the same approach in legislative periods. In the present study, with emphasis on Article 307 of the Islamic Penal Code, an attempt has been made to examine proportionality or legislative error from the perspective of judicial ethics.
 Conclusion: One of these barriers is the responsibility and subject of this study is "drunkenness barrier" which the legislator in a forward-looking invention has approved various states of subjective fit in drunkenness barrier in crimes subject to retribution (along with other limited crimes and Ta'zir) Thus, Article 307 of the Penal Code provides for measures to remove obstacles to criminal responsibility that lead to the actual appropriateness of the judicial decision, but the examination of the cases approved in this legal text, in view Immoral bills appear first, and are sometimes inconsistent with other articles of the Code of Ethical Punishment, including Article 154. Therefore, in this article, these two questions will be answered analytically and descriptively; Is the legislative approach to proportionality in Article 307? Is Article 307 the exception to the barrier of drunkenness in premeditated murder in the barriers to criminal liability, or is it the legislator wrong? This study indicates the legislator's proportionate approach to retaliatory crimes in the state of drunkenness. Which indicates legislative positioning and no legal inconsistencies.