نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
موسسه عالی فقه و علوم اسلامی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Determining the nature of a crime and its corresponding penalty is undeniably one of the most critical issues in criminal law. A specific scenario demanding precise clarification is the doubt concerning the type of a committed offense—that is, an act has occurred by an individual, but whether it constitutes an intentional crime (‘amd), quasi-intentional crime (shibh-i ‘amd), or accidental crime (khaṭa’) remains ambiguous. In such a hypothesis, it is imperative to investigate who bears the liability (ḍāmin) and what the subject of that liability (muta‘alliq aḍ-ḍamān) entails. Should the ruling be for qiṣāṣ (retribution) or diyah (blood money)?
Although the legislator in Article 472 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2013) obligates the perpetrator to pay diyah, a jurisprudential analysis reveals five other possibilities discussed among jurists (fuqahā’). These include the liability of the paternal relatives (‘āqilah), the liability of the public treasury (bayt al-māl), joint liability between the perpetrator and the ‘āqilah, or discretionary/determined liability for the perpetrator or ‘āqilah via drawing lots (qur‘ah).
This research, employing a library-based methodology and adopting an analytical-exegetical approach within the framework of jurisprudential principles, and relying on Prophetic traditions (riwāyāt) and rational judgment (hukm al-‘aql), endeavors to examine the ruling for this specific issue. It precisely delineates the ḍāmin and the muta‘alliq aḍ-ḍamān under the hypothesis of doubt in the crime’s nature. The findings indicate that in the scenario under discussion, the responsibility for liability rests solely upon the perpetrator, and entities such as the ‘āqilah or the bayt al-māl bear no responsibility in this regard, neither independently nor jointly with the perpetrator."
کلیدواژهها [English]