نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

• جعفر نظام الملکی

مدرس دانشگاه، عضو کانون وکلای دادگستری مرکز

چکیده

با وجود تحوّلات مثبت در ماده‌‌ی 286 قانون مجازات اسلامی، ابهام در مفهوم و قلمروی افساد فی الارض در مقایسه با مفهوم محاربه، رابطه‌‌ی این ماده با قانون مجازات اخلالگران در نظام اقتصادی کشور و رابطه‌‌ی آن با سایر قوانین، با توجه به تبصره‌‌ی آن، ابهامات ماده‌‌ی مذکور هستند؛ همچنین تسرّی عنوان افساد فی الارض به جرایم ارتکابی در حوزه‌‌های مختلف، مجازات واحد معاونت و مباشرت در جرم و عدم تمایز مفهوم و مجازات معاونت و سردستگی نیز نقائص ماده‌‌ی مذکور می‌‌باشند. بر مبنای نتایج تحقیق حاضر افساد فی الارض اعم از محاربه است. ماده‌‌ی 286 قانون مجازات اسلامی بر قانون مجازات اخلالگران در نظام اقتصادی کشور حکومت دارد. حالت مورد نظر در تبصره‌‌ی ‌‌‌‌ماده‌‌ی 286 نه توجیه‌‌پذیر و مطلوب بوده و نه ممکن است؛ لذا تبصره‌‌ی مذکور حشو است. اصلاح ماده‌‌ی 286 به شکل مقرّره‌‌ای تکمیلی برای سایر مصادیق جرائم افساد فی الارض، یا مقرّره‌‌ای جامع با نسخ مقررات قبلی در این حوزه و همچنین اصلاح آن از منظر پیش‌‌بینی مجازات متفاوت و متناسب برای معاون و مباشر جرم و در نهایت تمایز مفهوم و مجازات معاونت از سردستگی ضروری است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• افساد فی الارض
• تحلیل
• آسیب‌‌شناسی
• نقائص
• ابهامات

موضوعات

• حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis and pathology of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law and it’s interpretive and reformative solutions

نویسنده [English]

• jafar nezamolmolki

Ph. D in Private Law , Professor of university and Attorney-at-law.

چکیده [English]

aim
Many articles have been written for analysis and disambiguition of Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law; Nevertheless,  based on lack of comprehensive analysis of ambiguities and defects and  also lack of single study, consisting interpretative and implicative appropriate solution as to  the ambiguities and reformative solutions  for the defects,  a new and comprehensive study is necessary; which in it, While avoiding repetitive content, by studying the jurisprudential and Quranic history of Ifsad fi al-Arth and considering the principles governing criminal law and the principles of Islamic criminal jurisprudence, as well as the executive aspects of the law, take action for the comprehensive and coherent analysis and pathology of ambiguity and defects in the article take action; In such a way that, the appropriate interpretative and effective solution for the existing situation as to the ambiguities and appropriate model to amend the law in relation to the defects of the law  will be presented.
 
Methodolgy
In this article, based on library collection method and descriptive-analytical approach, In the first place  we analyze and determinate concept and scope of   Ifsad fi al-Arth, while comparing it with concept of Moharebah; Then, Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law has been analysed, considering different doctorine on it. For this purpose, after analyzing ambiguities of the article, we study it’s defects. in the meantime we suggest effective and efficient solutions for the article, while interpreting and analyzing it.
 
Findings 
Besides positive revolutions of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law ,i.e independence of Ifsad fi al-Arth from Moharebah, limiting of Ifsad fi al-Arth to crimes with large effects, by determining special conditions for it, and ultimately  public aspects of these crimes, ambiguity in concept and scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth compared with concept of Moharebah, relation of this article with The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country and it’s relation with other acts, considering its note, are ambiguities of this article; Also, generalizing  title of Ifsad fi al-Arth to committed crimes in different fields, the same punishment for accessory and Perpetration and absense of distinction between concept and scope of accessory and captaincy are defects of mentioned article.
 
 
Innovation
1-In respect of ambiguity at concept and scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth crimes, due to it’s relation with Moharebah crime, it seems that conceptual relationship between Ifsad fi al-Arth and  Moharebah is  absolute generality and peculiarity.
2- In respect of ambiguity at relation of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law  with The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country, based on the revolutions,  in relation major disruption crimes  which are considered Ifsad fi al-Arth , article 286 is governed on The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country.
3- In respect of ambiguity at note of article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law  and it’s relationship with other penal codes, based on study of different status as to  article 286, we prove that desired status, i.e conducts which  are neither crimes in other penal codes nor Ifsad fi al-Arth  criminalized in article 286, to be included in the note, are impossible and unjustifiable.
4- In respect of large scope of Ifsad fi al-Arth in article 286, which include crimes in different fields, as a defect, the best method for reforming the article is that to whether we consider it as a supplementary regulation,  for definition without criminalizing, as to other penal codes, which criminalized Ifsad fi al-Arth but not defining it, or if legislator intend to criminalize Ifsad fi al-Arth, while abolishing all of the penal codes in this field, pass a comprehensive penal regulation on it.
5- In respect of the same punishment for accessory and captaincy and  lack of conceptual and punishment distinction of them, interpretative solution is clearly in conflict with express provision of this article and cannot solve this obvious defects. So it is necessary to amend the law.
 
conclusion
Based on results of this research Ifsad fi al-Arth includes Moharebah and other crimes. Article 286 of Islamic Punishment Law governed to The Law of Punishing Disruptors in the Economic System of the Country and has considered some new characters and conditions for disruption in the Economic System of the Country. The assumption which note of article 286 is based on, i.e. some of criminal actions, which  are neither a crime subject to other acts and nor Ifsad fi al-Arth in this article, is neither justifiable nor desirable and in result the note is redundant. Modification of article 286 as a supplementary regulation for other instance of Ifsad fi al-Arth, or comprehensive regulation with abolishment of former regulations in this field and also it’s modification as to  considering different and suitable punishment for deputy of crime and perpetrator  of it and finally distinction concept and scope of accessory and captaincy are necessary

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Ifsad fi al-Arth
• Analysis
• pathology
• defects
• ambiguities