Cancellation of Hadd Punishment in the Absence of the Thief’s Body Organ to Be Amputated under Shi'ite Jurisprudence and Iranian Law

One of the punishments for theft is amputation and one of the important issues in this regard is how to execute the punishment of thieves who do not have the organ to be amputated. The fundamental question is whether the absence of the organ to be amputated causes the theft punishment to become cancelled? A group of jurists have tended to amputate another organ; however, there are different views on which organ should be amputated. On the contrary, most of the jurists have not accepted such a view and have argued about them in detail. From the point of view of this group, the cancellation of the subject of the sentence cancels the sentence itself and the hadd punishment (amputation) in such cases rather than becoming applicable to another organ. The present paper attempts to study and evaluate the views of jurists and their principles on this issue. First, it is hypothesized that the thief has the organ to be amputated at the time of the robbery, but after the robbery and before the hadd is executed, he loses that organ, and then it is hypothesized that the thief does not have the organ to be amputated at the time of the robbery. In this way, a correct judgment can be presented among the different opinions of the jurists. Finally, the laws in this regard are discussed and some suggestions are presented.