جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "کمال عقل" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2012 has brought about a serious and effective development in the way of criminal response and appropriate treatment of crimes requiring punishment or retribution for minors under the age of eighteen.  According to the ruling provided in this article: "In crimes that cause punishment or retribution, when adults under the age of eighteen years have committed the nature of the crime, or they do not understand the sanctity of it, or there is doubt about their development and intellectual perfection, as the case may be, with consideration according to their age, the punishments foreseen in this chapter will be sentenced."  However, considering that specific criteria have not been determined to determine the lack of understanding of the nature of the crime or its sanctity and the doubt in the development and perfection of the juvenile mind, it has caused numerous and challenging disagreements in the ruling jurisprudence, which can be caused by the decisions  And the different and contradictory opinions of forensic experts and judges dealing with such juvenile crimes and their mental tendencies are in the course of the proceedings.  Therefore, according to the mentioned challenges, it is suitable  to create a single judicial procedure and prevent the issuance of mixed and contradictory, and arbitrary judgments in this regard, a certain age as the age of criminal responsibility in such crimes is determined in line with international regulations with This type of crime should be dealt with by juveniles under the age of eighteen.

The provision of Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code 1392 has ambiguities and difficulties both from a jurisprudential and human rights perspective. The possibility of interpreting the law to the effect that, in principle, adults under the age of 18 are sentenced to death, except in exceptional cases; the authority of the judge to prove that an adult under 18 years of age is not subject to exceptional cases; disregarding the personality of adults under 18, and the vagueness of the alternative punishment of the death penalty are some of these difficulties. The present article attempts to identified these ambiguities by employing a descriptive-analytical method and by using legal documents, Islamic jurisprudential and judicial opinions. Finally, some suggestions to modify the law was propsed.

By ratifying human rights documents (such as Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights & Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child), Iran has committed not to execute persons under 18. However, in the previous Islamic Penal Code (1370), once children reached the age of legal maturity (9 and 15 full lunar years), they are supposed responsibil even for crimes that were punishable by death. Therefore, death penalty for crimes before the age of 18 was incompatibile with the mentioned obligations, until the Iran enacted Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 in this regard.
From other hand, Iran also obliged to respect Islamic standards (the fourth principle of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran); Therefore, the Iran has two obligations regarding the  death penalty for  juveniles, the first one is a human rights obligation and the second is a religious obligation; Therefore, the compliance of Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code with these two forms of commitment needs to be investigated. In this regards, the main questions are as follows: "1. What are the jurisprudential and human rights challenges of Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code 1392 in relation to the death penalty for adults under 18 years of age? 2. What are the roots of these challenges? And 3. What is the solution  for these difficulties?". In order to answer the three mentioned questions, three levels of analysis were adopted.  First, each challenge is described and then criticized in terms of legal foundations, jurisprudential (fiqhi) evidence and relevant human rights documents. Then, the roots of these challenges and the presuppositions that exist at the background were analyzed. After that some suggestions to modify the law were proposed. The present article differes from previous researches in that it involves a comprehensive view of the chanllenges raised by article 91 of Islamic Penal Code and suggests a revision of the law.

In this research, the ambiguities and difficulties of Article 91 of Islamic Penal Code 1392 in relation to the death penalty for juveniles, have been identified by using library sources and in a descriptive-analytical method.

The difficulties of the article are extra-legal and extra-islamic jurisproudnece rather than jurisprudential or legal. Its root lies in the lack of attention to philosophical issues about jurisprudence and different levels of law (especially legislation and islamic jurisprudence). Having a cross-disciplinary and extra-legal perspective and paying attention to philosophical issues about jurisprudence and law, it is concluded that solving the problems depends on taking these issues seriously:(1) In traditional and classical jurisprudence, the meaning of the “condition of reason” in criminal cases is not only its literal meaning (only the absence of insanity), but it also includes intellectual perfection. Therefore, failure to refer explicitly to the conditional nature of criminal liablity and its dependance on intellectual perfection can not be the reason for its absence in jurisprudance. (2) The requirement of rational perfection for criminal liability is logical in the sense that the absence of explicit reference to it can not be attributed to Shariat; So, (3) believing that criminal liability is dependant on both intellectual perfection and criminal liabilty is possible and defensible from the point of view of Shari'ah and jurisprudence, and it is also necessity. (4) Legal system, jurisprudence and Shariah in various legal fields (including law education, legal research, legislation, law enforcement and litigation) should move in this direction.

The two concerns of compliance with Islamic standards and with human rights obligations have led to the approval of Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code (2012). The following five interpretations are inconsistent with the relevant human rights documents and cannot be defended based on the correct inference from islamic jurisprudence:(1) The article allows commentators to interpret the law in this way: death penaltyof an adult under 18 is only an exceptional matter; (2) distingushing and proofinf of criminal maturity lacks criteria; (3) Given this fact that the perpetrator is not subject to the mentioned exception, the judge can even ignor the medical reports about the juvenile under 18 about rechhing full Intellectual growth ; (4) The personality of a under 18 person who is punishable by death penalty is not considered; In the event that the judge determines that the juvenile under 18  is not executed due to the lack of full wiseness and criminal growth, the alternative punishments are ambiguous.

Paying attention to the criminal development in addition to sexual maturity for the first time in Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code 1392 and the necessity of obtaining it in punitive and retributive crimes, as well as the development of judicial powers for the abolition of punishment and retaliation is not only possible for perpetrators under 18 years of age, but also for those aged over 18. It is also possible to prove it on one hand, and on the other, eliminate the difference in the minimum age for criminality between girls and boys in crimes of inferiority and follow a system of gradual liability indicating the acceptance of relative criminal responsibility and a different and discriminatory criminal response. Children and adolescents versus adults are considered to take the steps in making the law in favor of their desires to achieve a favorable system of criminal responsibility for them. However, the use of the term "punishment" is not entirely possible in Article 91 of Criminal Code, and it does not seem correct based on the "decisions" in Article 88 of the Criminal Code.

From challenging and controversial issues, the issue is the age of people in the enjoyment of social and political rights, as well as criminal liability, with no single procedure in this regard. In terms of maturity and the age of criminal responsibility, the two terms are different, yet related. In Article 91 Alongside growth, the courage of intellectuals under the age of 18 has been voiced in the context of the criminal responsibility of adolescents, which implies a dramatic development in juvenile criminal responsibility, which in terms of recognition of the growth and perfection of criminals under the age of 18 years of jurisprudential basis has it. Therefore, the present research seeks to answer the question of how well the growth and perfection are and what is the basis? Which initially explains the concept of growth and perfection, and it is proved that growth is not exclusively dedicated to a specific civilian concept and can be generalized to non-financial issues, including criminal affairs, since through the former or at least the unity of the criterion and the spatial , Growth is also conditional on criminal responsibility, and age is 18 years old for growth, and the growth of a person must be established for criminal responsibility; for this claim, while explaining the meanings, the narrations and precedence analogy are cited in the issue of growth and perfection.

The Islamic Penal Code of 1392 has adopted a new criminal policy for people under the age of eighteen, and The punishments provided are less than that of adults. But the most important invention of legislator relates to establishing the term of maturity and intellect perfection to apply punishments in Hadd and Qisas. However, there are important ambiguities in this legislature's approach to observe. What is discussed in this article, Pay attention to the concept and conditions of maturity and intellect perfection in Hadd and Qisas and It is in conformity with the shariah criteria and jurisprudence opinions. Also, it should be said about the punishment of children and juvenile from 9 to 18 years of age, for them in the Ta'zir crimes Gradual criminal responsibility provided with Assuming absence of maturity and intellect perfection. But in Hadd and Qisas Only Mature people will be subject to Hadd and Qisas punishments that maturity and intellect perfection To be verified. Otherwise, they will be sentenced to alternative punishments, such as non- Mature people. However, the great ambiguities and disagreements of the judges in this regard make it necessary to amend the rules on it.

The age of the growth and criminal responsibility of children and adolescents is one of the important and challenging issues in Iran and other countries' criminal law, which has been criticized and protest by lawyers and is a matter of dispute between Islamic jurisprudents. This age, often referred to as puberty, varies from country to country. In Iranian penal codes, this age is influenced by Imamieh jurisprudence; according to most Shiite jurisprudents, this age is for girls nine and for lonely fifteen years, but in Article 91 Alongside growth, the courage of intellectuals under the age of 18 has been voiced in civilian civic debate among adolescents, which has marked a dramatic development in juvenile criminal responsibility, which in terms of recognition of the growth and perfection of criminals under the age of 18 years of jurisprudence has it. Therefore, the present research first explains the concept of growth and its similar concepts, namely, perfection and distinction, and it is proved that in the legal and juridical terms, growth is not exclusively devoted to a specific civil concept and can be generalized to non-financial issues, including criminal matters Also because criminal matters are far more important than finance, and the condition is first and foremost, or at least the unity of the criterion and place of spatial planning, in terms of criminal responsibility. For this claim, the precedence of precedence in the growth problem is cited and then explained to the term "perfection", and by comparative study of the subject of age, development, perfection and criminal responsibility from the point of view of jurisprudence, rights and critique of existing laws, suggestions The age of criminal responsibility for children is proportionate to their rational development and their differentiation, and it is therefore necessary to review the age of criminal responsibility of adolescents and adopt a single procedure.