An Investigation of Ambiguous Confessions from IMAMIYEH Criminal Jurisprudence Perspective

Confession is the most significant evidence of proof and in fact it is the most rigorous of it. Confession which is supported by all conditions may sometimes be inconclusive and ambiguous in that a confessant explicitly admits that there is a fixed punishment (HADD) on his/her obligation, but does not make clear which HADD is on his/her obligation and due to which crime HADD has been imposed. This phenomenon has been labeled as ambiguous confession in jurisprudence. Islamic penal code has been silent about the problem of ambiguous confession despite its long history and ancient works of jurisprudence.This paper is an attempt to explore this subject from the perspective of jurisprudence and available viewpoints and finally support an eclectic viewpoint. The author's findings are summarized as follows: clarification of the confession is not obligatory for the judge. These findings are not recommended. In case the evidence and reason of primary rules are insufficient, the outcome should be lack of proof of HADD or at least collapse of HADD. According to the "specific reason" of the subject, the punishment of this confession is whipping.