جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تعدد نتایج » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

In case multiple crimes are caused by a single strike، there are three different beliefs concerning the ruling on this issue. The renowned majority of jurists have deemed as necessary the payment of blood money (diya) by the criminal for all the crimes perpetrated. Another group، who has maintained the interference of crimes، are themselves divided into two groups. One group maintains interference and consequently deems as necessary the payment of only one diya in an absolute way and another does so with some conditions. The legislator، who had not previously stated a clear ruling regarding multiple crimes resulting from one strike، has tried to state the ruling on this issue in the new Islamic Penal Law. The legislator has acted very poorly in this respect، because he has not only rejected the generally accepted assertion but has also، for accepting the ruling on the interference of crimes، added the condition of no-intentionality of the criminal’s strike to the conditions already mentioned by the second group jurists. That is to say، the legislator has practically not accepted the view of any of the jurists in this regard. The present writing is a library/documentary research that has been organized by descriptive-analytic method and concluded by a legal-judicial study that if the second crime is the result and outcome of the main crime and one is major and the other minor، the minor will interfere in the major and contrary to the articles proposed by the legislator، there is no difference between the intentionality and non- ntentionality of the criminal’s primary strike.