جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « multiple crimes » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

In the new punishment of law, for any unwarranted or deliberate crime is Diya, but Does Diya also be multiplied by the multiplicity of crimes committed, or are a Diyat paid for all crimes? In diya interference Diego smaller damage in the damage absorbed is greater and the multiplicity of crimes against the Islamic Penal Code of the plurality of interference diyah and is considered something exceptional. The law limited materials related to interference diya mainly from Tahrir Imam Khomeini (RA) is adapted In rare cases, interference report on atonement and atonement in the report is accepted by the legislator. In this paper, due to the differences in the issues of interference and interference crimes diya and allocating the articles of the Penal Code Act 1392 to this topic After reviewing different forms of interference or non-interference in accordance with law and the rulings of Islamic law diya Shiites and Sunnis have tried to obscure aspects of the law is clear Article 543 of the Penal Code interference condition created as a result of injuries unit, and units of real damage being located in a single or multiple injuries the customary unit is considered the And the above-mentioned stipulations is considered to be interference. The laws on conflicts of interest if the interest is vested with the member and the member’s interest in the ongoing crime of interference is known to be eroded and other forms of interference are also not mentioned.

Despite the legislative accuracy in the enactment of laws, there are times when one is unable to enforce two rules of the law at the same time. In these circumstances, it is necessary to clarify which rule the individual will implement. one of the most important issues is the necessity of interpretation of laws, incongruity among the legal provisions which constitute the ambiguity in the manner of law enforcement. incongruity occurs in the implementation phase of the rule, and at this stage they are not aggregated, meaning that it cannot be done at the same time. in the present study, there are various types of incongruity and solutions to solve it with regard to whether there is preferential between the two sides. it also tries to analyze one of the examples of incongruity in criminal law, that is, multiple criminal identities, so that in material multiplicity, as the basis of the legislator is a punishment for two acts of crime, it is accepted as the basis of two offences. it is necessary to obtain a rational method in order to provide coherence within the legal system.

In our country's legislative criminal policy, the legislature has permitted the possibility of a limited change and adjustment of the degree of crimes in the criminal proceedings, which are often influenced by the directions of commutation or aggravation of the punishment. However, this change in the degree of crimes during the proceedings, which may occur for a variety of reasons, has caused challenges and disagreements in the judicial procedures of the courts and prosecutors of the country. Because changing the degree of crimes can bring to mind the change in the jurisdiction of the courts, the most obvious example of that is the question of determining and changing the jurisdiction of criminal courts one and two with the occurrence of changing the degree of crimes. Therefore, changing the degree of crimes is a matter that requires investigation and investigation, and consequently marks a new type of discrepancy in jurisdiction among criminal courts one and two. In this paper, we have tried to investigate the performance and reaction of judicial procedures when changes in the degree of attribution crimes occur during the proceedings and its effect on the jurisdiction of the courts. In fact, in this scientific exploration, the criteria for jurisdiction, the legal punishment, i.e., the amount of punishment specified under the law, have been considered and proved, and not the judicial punishment that has been changed due to commutation or intensification.

The Islamic penal code of Iran enacted 1392 has not predicated a particular ruling for the multiple crimes committed by juveniles and minors. This silence of the legislator makes disagreement between legal doctrine and judiciary. The author with applying the descriptive-analytic and library method and with aim to present a logical resolution for the ruling of the multiple crimes committed by minors, meanwhile studying the different attitudes and with relying on the legal standards and the general principles of the criminal law and for response to this question if the public regulations about all persons under age of 18 years old (including children and mature under the age of 18 years old) from the point of the enforcement of the punishment and security measures can be enforceable it has resulted that with considering the explicitly of Article 146 of the Islamic Penal Code 1392, the indication of the divergent meaning of Article 148 of this law in the implementation of penalty on mature persons, the explicit implication of the last part of Article 91 of the mentioned law the term ”مجازات“ (punishment) about mature persons who are under age of 18 years old and the generalizaity of the statement ”یکی از تصمیمات ذیل…“ (one of the following decisions…) in the upper part of Article 88, the regulations of the multiple crimes for all mature persons who are under 18 years old that the social reaction against them are of the crimes is enforceable.

Alternative imprisonment have been evaluated from various aspects, but what makes all these kinds of writings valid is firstly their legal evaluation independently and in interacting with other institutions of Islamic Penal Code. Meanwhile if it is abandoned because of its inefficiency, it is not possible to exploit the benefits of its implementation. This study is attempt to examine the general condition of multiple crime in alternative imprisonments (article 72, IPC), and interaction with other law institutes. the same way, it scrutinizes the effect of this confrontation on the determination of the penalties for alternatives imprisonment to clarify the effectiveness of this lenient institute and the limitations of applicable penalties. what springs to mind first regarding the multiplicity of crimes and the existence of this condition in alternative imprisonment, is intensification of this institution to deprive the perpetrators of a criminal offense of alternative imprisonment. On contrary, with the clarification of concept, the immediate effects of this condition will be determined by the fact that it will exacerbate minor offenses on one hand and discount for serious crimes and dangerous offenders on the other hand. Consequently, the existence of such a condition in the alternative imprisonment will rupture this institution.

By virtue of the Articles 296-299 of IPC, if the perpetrator commits several crimes to the organs of a person by one or more than one strikes, the latter shall be subject to qisas in person or qisas in person plus qisas in organ and in some cases the latter shall be subject to payment of full Diyah. However, there are other punishments provided under fiqh as well, which are sometimes more consistent with principles of penal law and the provisions of the Qur’anic Verses, Hadiths and usual Amaliyah. Now the question is if the said items are consistent the propositions of the Islamic fiqh. Given the necessity of consistence of the penal laws with Shariah, Seeking to legitimize the rules of penal code, this paper aimed to amend the above mentioned articles of law and proved that except for the ambiguity involved in the Article 298, this article and the Article 297 are not inconsistent with the credible fiqh authorities. However, the generality of the Article 296 and the provisions of Article are not defendable and must be amended on the basis of the strength of most of the evidence provided by the opponents.

How to hand down a Diye verdict in the cases that multiple crimes are created along each other (in lengthwise (tooli) of crime) caused by one beat is the issue that was investigated in this paper. For instance when vertebral column breaking caused to become paralyzed and lack of bladder control in the person. In this case it should be noted that Dyiat are not merged in such an assumption unless one hit is followed by two injuries (Tooli injuries) in a way that the first crime is followed by the second one which has higher Diye and more disadvantages. This verdict is due to an available quote in this field which the 1392 Islamic punishment law has handed down verdicts based on it. Regarding crime against organ and benefit¡ merging Dyiat seems possible only if the organ has a benefit and there is a necessity relationship between crime against organ and benefits.

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.