جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « intentional murder » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

According to civil and criminal law, denial after confession of the perpetrator of murder is not accepted; however, most scholars (at least some jurists) and Article 173 of the Islamic Penal Code exclude cases such as Rajm from this principle. In other words, in this case, the denial can be examined after the confession. Two issues can be discussed regarding the effect of denial after confession on Qisas. The first case: confessing to intentional murder and then another person confessing to the same murder and the first confessor denying the confession. The second case is confessing to intentional murder and then denying it without the presence of another person's confession to the same murder. The subject of this article is to examine the second case, which has not been extensively discussed in jurisprudence texts. In this article, this question has been answered. Is it possible, based on the totality of the evidence, that denial after confessing to intentional homicide will not result in Qisas? The research results show that according to the narration of Jameel bin Darraj and other evidence, denial after confession can cause non-Qisas. The article aims to examine the issue in a jurisprudential manner in order to amend the law. The research method is descriptive and analytical; documents are collected from library sources.

According to Article 130 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the crime scene investigation group is responsible for revealing the dimensions of the murder mystery. In this research, which was carried out with a qualitative and library method, the investigation is divided into two main categories, police and judicial, according to the activities mentioned in the executive regulations on the scope of powers and duties of crime scene investigation, it is pointed out that the actions taken in Crime scenes are purely police in nature and are basically in line with law enforcement duties. On the other hand, the judge sometimes has demands about the manner of the crime and the quality of its commission, which were not previously mentioned in the report of the crime scene investigation team. This type of judicial investigation has a very decisive role in the decision-making of the judges of the courts, which according to the executive regulations of the crime scene investigation can be obtained through the investigations carried out at the crime scene and the opinion of the experts of the crime scene investigation group, so this result is obtained. It is possible that the mentioned group, using their powers, each according to their specialized duties, should answer two basic questions about the identification of the killer and the quality of the murder. Undoubtedly, achieving this goal, in addition to helping to convince the judge's conscience to issue a verdict, also solves the problem of delaying proceedings.

Self-defense as one of the justified causes of crime or the reason to drop retaliatory punishment (death penalty) has been defined and legislated by the legislator according to articles 156, 302 and 303 of the Islamic Penal Code 1392. Iran's legislature has sought to develop the substantive provisions of legitimate defense and increase its scope from real to extreme and apparent types in the articles of reference. Despite this, in the field of formal rules governing this legal institution, especially the authority that determines it, according to the majority of judges, especially in the prosecutor's office, it has lacked the necessary clarity and courage, and even with the approval of Article 265 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the ambiguity is doubled and the judicial procedure in terms of the possibility of intervention and the exercise of legitimate defense by the prosecutor's office, it has confused and adopted taste. By adopting the qualitative method and extracting the approaches of Iran's criminal justice system through field investigation and in-depth interviews, the present research seeks to answer the basic question of what harms may cause from the acceptance of legitimate defense in the prosecution in cases of intentional homicide and the strategies to overcome the existing challenges. The result of this research shows that not only the discretion in the exercise of legitimate defense and the investigation of its complex conditions is beyond the power of the prosecution and the unit investigation authority and it has serious and effective challenges, but with the above mentioned legal texts, validity is determined by the Criminal Court and the prosecutor's office does not have the legal competence, authority and discretion to accept it. In this way, the public meetings and judicial decisions and consultative opinions of the legal department of the judiciary, which is under the jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office in the exercise of legitimate defense with any party and has taken steps to stabilize the prevailing judicial thought and practice, are against the legal standards and the belief of the judges of the Criminal Court and the Supreme Court of Iran.

According to statistical data at the level of the country as well as Mashhad city, intentional homicide is one of the most important crimes in terms of the rate of occurrence among crimes against physical integrity; Therefore, in order to control the mentioned crime, the criminal form of this crime, in terms of the nationality of the murderer, the frequency of murder coordinates, the place of residence of the murderer and the victim, the time of handling the murder cases, the duration of the arrest of the murderer, the method of proving the murder and the method of applying the punishment are examined and be evaluated. This research is a quantitative correlational study where the data in the files were quantitatively entered into the computer and analyzed using the Spss statistical package. The statistical community in this research was the number of 110 murder cases committed from 1390 to 1394 in the criminal scene of Mashhad. According to the findings of the research, immediate murder caused by anger/excitement with 54 cases (49.09 percent) ranks first, pre-decided murder (grudge and previous enmity/prejudice) with 37 cases (33.64 percent) ranks first. Second, murder with a frequency of 7 cases (6.36 percent) in the third rank and mass fight with a frequency of 5 cases (4.55 percent) occurred in the fourth rank. According to the results of this research, most of the murders were caused by pressure, subculture of violence and weak self-control, which is more evident in young people. For this reason, raising the threshold of tolerance and control of anger, especially in instant murders, is one of the most effective measures in the direction of preventing murder and reducing its occurrence.

Subsidiary punishment, based on the principle of the legality of punishments, is imposed on the perpetrator in addition to the main punishment, depending on the commission of the crime. Subsidiary (Consequential) punishment requires a provision in the law. In intentional murder, the perpetrator is deprived of inheriting property and Diye (blood money) and in quasi-intentional murders and sheer mistake, he is deprived of inheriting Diye. If there are justified reasons for the crime, such as legitimate defense and the law, this punishment will not be applied to the perpetrator. However, in the cases of factors that eliminate criminal liability, such as murder by a minor and an insanity, forced, murder in sleep, unconsciousness, and murder by mistake, the perpetrator is deprived of inheritance. The application of exclusion in inheritance is not limited to the heir, and the possibility of applying it to the testator, the heir, and the deputy in the case of murder needs to be investigated. Deprivation of inheritance in case of murder is a preventive measure against the occurrence of murder, so that people who commit murder with greed to reach the deceased’s estate, refrain from committing it.

According to the Article 301 of Islamic Penal Code in 2013, retribution is proven if perpetrator is not the perpetrator's father or paternal ancestor, and the perpetrator is sane and equal to the perpetrator in religion. Article 301 of Islamic Penal Code expresses this significance. Therefore, parental relationship excludes retribution exclusively, but blood money and atonement are appropriate. Although the murderer is sentenced to deflation punishment, blood money and atonement are maintained. Furthermore, the murderer is sentenced to deflation punishment. The existence of parental relationship prevents the retribution proof, even if the infidel father kills his Muslim child. Since there was a requirement to prohibit retribution, and thus there is the non-requirement principle. It is worth to note the way of committing the act is frequently fatal. In the present article, the researcher seeks to answer this question that why mother is not included in line with father in Article 301of Islamic Penal Code? To answer, the hypothesis is raised that according to Article 301 of the Islamic Penal Code, where the mother is the murderer and the victim is her child, the punishment is not the same as that of father. The data collection was done through analysing the library-based resources

"Intent to typically deadly act" is a phrase that is specified in the articles related to premeditated murder (paragraphs b and c of Article 206 of the Law of 1991 and paragraphs B and C of Article 290 of the Law adopted in 2013); This restriction is interpreted in different ways by the legislature in the terminology of jurists in terms of not providing a definition of it. The important point is that this rule merges with kind of murder which used instrument in, and causes ambiguities that some consider typically deadly acts mean same as the murder which used instrumet.It was sufficient Judicialy the mere of the using deadly weapon regardless of the position of the blow, the sensitivity and the absence of the position to carry out the premeditated murder. We believe that both of, "typically lethal" and "lethal weapon," are two separate concepts, meaning that the lethal weapon is the instrument used in murder and does not have a specif meaning in murder, and only should He looked at it to prove the murder and the means by which the murder was committed. In this article, we intend to address some of the ambiguities and drawbacks about this approach and its distinction from the instrument used in murder. This research has been done in the form of a library-documents that we first found the source in relation to the subject according to the subject and then studied the field by gathering resources.

The death of the intentional murderer is one of the instances that renders impossible the execution of retaliation (qisas) since the location for the execution of the retaliation which is the physical body of the murderer is eliminated. There has long been controversy among jurists over the payment of blood money for murder in the case of the death of the murderer in deliberate homicide. Some jurists believe in the lapse of blood money with the death of the murderer. On the other hand, some other jurists consider the constancy of the payment of blood money with the impossibility of retaliation.  And some even consider an elaboration and take a middle ground.  Legislature is also affected by this diversity so that, before the approval of penal code in 1392, the legislators approved the lapse of blood money, but in the new penal code the previous attitude was abandoned and constancy of blood money is accepted. This paper examines the reasons and evidence of the opponents and advocates and elaborates on the quality of the inclusion in the rule of "No-Waste of Muslim Blood" on the issue of the death of the intentional murderer and considers the aforementioned rule is as the reason behind the ascertainment of blood money. This paper also demonstrates that, in the three situations recognized by tradition, the person responsible for payment of blood money differs in the death of the murderer of the third party compared to the two other kinds of murder.

Murder or injury to the peoples’ physical entirety is considered among crimes which have been attracted the attention of human law - makers, and consequently, the most severe punishments have been leveled against such crimes. The Islamic lawmaker has considered lex talionis as the penalty for murder. Such a crime punishment turns to be so complicated in cases it is associated with people with special physical conditions such as Siamese Twins which needs to be inves - tigated. The findings of this paper report that Siamese Twins reflect either independent or joint personalities. Thus, this issue is effective in the related sentences passed for them. Regarding the murder sen- tence, if one of the twines commits murder, due to the death of the other because of the lex talionis, this sentence would be cancelled, otherwise one of them could be separated from the other, and if the twins are intentionally murdered, due to the multiplicity of crimes, punishments are also multiplied. However, if one of the twins is killed intentionally and the other dies consequently, regarding to the first one, the murderer is sentenced to lex talionis and with respect to the other, given the murder is intentional or unintentional, the relat - ed sentence is passed.

Murder or injury to the peoples’ physical entirety is considered among crimes which have been attracted the attention of human lawmakers, and consequently, the most severe punishments have been leveled against such crimes. The Islamic lawmaker has considered lex talionis as the penalty for murder. Such a crime punishment turns to be so complicated in cases it is associated with people with special physical conditions such as Siamese Twins which needs to be investigated. The findings of this paper report that Siamese Twins reflect either independent or joint personalities. Thus, this issue is effective in the related sentences passed for them. Regarding the murder sentence, if one of the twines commits murder, due to the death of the other because of the lex talionis, this sentence would be cancelled, otherwise one of them could be separated from the other, and if the twins are intentionally murdered, due to the multiplicity of crimes, punishments are also multiplied. However, if one of the twins is killed intentionally and the other dies consequently, regarding to the first one, the murderer is sentenced to lex talionis and with respect to the other, given the murder is intentional or unintentional, the related sentence is passed.

Lawmaker in new Islamic penal code in chapter five of general articles of atonements, under paragraph b of article 488, has determined two years deadline for payment atonement in quasi-intentional murder, as the murderer is required to pay half of atonement per year. This viewpoint is accompanied agreement of famous Imam Jurists with itself. The main famous reason after consensus, is being "different criteria". They believe since the quasi-intentional murder is lighter than first degree murder, and harder than chance-medley, and as respects in first degree murder that causing atonement and chance-medley murderer have to paid atonement respectively in one and three years; so in quasi-intentional murder naturally this term should be two years.The author with conflict in was claimed consensus and denial mentioned credit reason and cited to evidence predications of deadline for payment atonement, and also cited to practical principle in position, respite and term payment of mentioned atonement knows three years.

Uncertainty or error in word means mistake, ignorance and unawareness. And in legal sense it means that the murderer targets an objective person but hits somebody else and kills him/her for any reason including lack of skill or involuntary causes. In respect to the impact of error in target on nature of murder, it seems two modes should be distinguished: 1- If a person intends to shoot on a punishable thing, animal or person and his shoot would go wrong and hit a respectful one, in this case the murder is considered as pure error.2- If a person intends to shoot on a respectful one, but his shoot would go wrong and kill another respectful person, this case is assumed as intentional murder according to criminal rights logic. Regarding Shiite jurists view on error in targeting, most of them assume this kind of murder as pure error without distinguishing between shooting to a punishable or a respectful person. The same case is seen in Article 296 Islamic Penal Code (1370). Fortunately, by deleting old article 296 and registering Clause “D” Article 290, the new legislator has been trying to declare that error in targeting where both primary and final target are respectful persons, has no impact on the nature of murder (as according to Article 294, error in identity has no impact on the nature of murder) because if we accept that legislator’s goal is to protect each person not one or some specific one (s), then there is no difference who would be murdered at the end. The important point is that a respectful person is murdered so the murder is considered as intentional murder.