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
Ahmad Hajidehabadi; Ali Asgari Morovat
Abstract
It is possible to commission of quasi-intentional felony, the subject of three clauses of article 291, by omission with this condition that the most prominent example of felonies is to be committed by the omission in C section (falseness) of this article. In clause (a) and (b) of this article, the behavior ...
Read More
It is possible to commission of quasi-intentional felony, the subject of three clauses of article 291, by omission with this condition that the most prominent example of felonies is to be committed by the omission in C section (falseness) of this article. In clause (a) and (b) of this article, the behavior is not effective and can consist of action and omission. The most challenging part of this research is the possibility of commission of simple mistake felony by omission. The commission of simple mistake felony, the subject of clause (a) of Article 292 is not possible by omission, since in this assumption, or the perpetrator is not responsible for the lack of the condition of ability or, in the case of liability, the crime is intentional or quasi-intentional. In clause (b) of this article, if the minor is undertaking in accordance with Article 85 of the Non-Litigious Matters Act, and a felony is committed by commission, this is simple mistake felony. Finally, although the commission of simple mistake felony, the subject of clause (c) of Article 292, is rare by omission, but it cannot be falsified.
