The Precept of Spread of the Forgiven Crime

The retaliation punishment is among individual rights which may be waived by the right holder(the victim). The essential question is that what effect does forgiving of the original crime by thevictim have on the criminal’s criminal responsibility for subsequent spread of the crime to thesoul or other organ? According to the view attributed to the famous jurists, in case of spread toan organ, the criminal is sentenced to pay its blood money and in case of spread to the soul, heis sentenced to retaliation and in both cases, the blood money of the forgiven crime should bereturned to the criminal. The only difference between the second view and the first opinion isthe non-necessity of returning the blood money of the forgiven crime in case of spread to thesoul. Under the third view, forgiving the crime is equal to forgiving the spread and the criminalis not responsible for subsequent spread. According to the selected view, if spread is intendedby the criminal or the instrument of crime typically causes the spread, the criminal is sentencedto retaliation for spread; otherwise, in case of spread to the soul, returning the blood money ofthe forgiven crime is not necessary either. The present paper, in addition to analyzing the jurisprudentialbases of the issue, reasoned and innovative criticism of opinions and answering theraised problems, proposes the modification of legal provisions based on the latter view with theraised considerations about it.