Mehdi Jaliliyan; Ahmad Haji Dehabadi; Mohammad Ebrahim Shams Nateri; Mahdi Sheidaeian
Abstract
The response to the complicated issue of the scope of self-ownership has shed light on the issues like unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and organ transplant in the convicts of execution. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudential doctrines, there are a myriad of disagreements ...
Read More
The response to the complicated issue of the scope of self-ownership has shed light on the issues like unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and organ transplant in the convicts of execution. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudential doctrines, there are a myriad of disagreements over the subject of whether men are the owners of their organs or not. The resulted approach is that Islamic viewpoint, contrary to western ideologies which are humanistic, does not completely accept self-ownership. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudence, freedom of men and their dominance on their body is an axiom but cannot expose them to unreasonable harm. From the standpoint of western legal theory, the proponents of self-ownership believe men are the owners of their organs and thus maintain that this law faces some limitations in the framework of natural law. Moreover, they hold that criminalization of unreasonable harm to self is not to be justified. In contrast, those who believe in the moral patriarchal theory object to self-ownership and justify the criminalization of such conducts. The present article analyzes the afore-mentioned standpoints through a descriptive method and then compares unreasonable cosmetic surgery in the criminal law of Iran with those of England andؤ
mohamad ebrahim shamsnateri; Farhad Sadeghi
Abstract
The intensification of punishment is always one of the most challenging issues of public criminal law. The multiplicity of titles (spiritual, credit) of crime is also no exception to this rule as a factor in the intensification of punishment. Iran's criminal law policy between a person who deals with ...
Read More
The intensification of punishment is always one of the most challenging issues of public criminal law. The multiplicity of titles (spiritual, credit) of crime is also no exception to this rule as a factor in the intensification of punishment. Iran's criminal law policy between a person who deals with a violation of several articles of criminal law with a person who has violated only one criminal code by acting. Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code has been set up in the form of a multiplicity of offenses punishable by a crime, but has left many challenges. Nevertheless, the author in this research is one of the most important challenges in the field of multiplicity, including: ambiguity and doubt on how to recognize the punishment, the non-enforceability of the punishment and its consequences, how to impose extra punishments, and the boundary between multiplicity and multiplicity of outcome Has been investigated. In this paper, we have tried to provide answers to the questions of lawmaking and interpretation of the law to resolve these ambiguities.
