Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Graduate, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Ayatollah Haeri University, Meybod, Iran.
Abstract
The criterion of area, meaning that length, width, and depth must be observed in the case of the crime against physical integrity, is described in the book of Qisas of the Islamic Penal Code. In Article 394 of the Islamic Penal Code, the legislator has considered it necessary to observe the equality of length and width in the qisas of injuries. Strict observance of equality in length and width may cause the crime to spread to the limb adjacent to the limb subject to qisas, and this will mean the execution of qisas on two limbs. The legislator has paid attention to the prohibition of executing qisas on a limb other than the same limb, and therefore, if the length of the limb subject to qisas is less than the length of the injured limb in the victim, while prohibiting the execution of qisas on the other limb, it has ordered the payment of blood money for the excess of the crime. The legislator has ruled on the similarity of length and width based on the extent of the crime committed against the victim, and in fact, the victim is an indicator for determining the amount of punishment in the execution of qisas. However, the legislator considered the depth of the crime to be the truth of the crime in the body subject to criminal retribution, and in other words, he considered similarity in depth to mean the realization of the title of a similar crime in the crime, and he did not consider the observance of similarity in area to mean the implementation of retribution based on the millimeter measurement of the depth of the crime committed against the victim. The legislator took a dual approach to fragmenting the area criterion and considered the crime as an indicator for determining the depth based on the truth of the crime and the victim as an indicator for determining the length and width. A search of jurisprudential texts shows different statements in this regard. Since no explicit narration has explained this issue, there is no choice but to adhere to the saying of the Supreme Court based on the relevant principles in the book of retribution and how to implement retribution in similar cases. One of the principles raised in the implementation of punishment is the proportionality of the punishment to the degree of criminal responsibility, meaning that the criminal is condemned to bear and implement punishment on his physical integrity in proportion to the crime he committed against the victim. Proportionality of crime and punishment means that the punishment is determined in accordance with the crime committed, and in the next stage, it is necessary to determine the amount of punishment in proportion to the criminal responsibility. This principle, adhering to the principles of justice, fairness, and human dignity, rejects the victim as an indicator, and dictates the necessity of determining the criminal as a single indicator in all dimensions of depth, length, and width to observe similarity in the implementation of retribution, in such a way that first the proportionality of the crime committed on the victim is measured in proportion to the entire body, and in this proportion, retribution is carried out on the criminal. In addition to the fact that the execution of retribution in similar cases implies that it is carried out in accordance with the principle of proportionality of punishment to the degree of responsibility, for example, retribution is carried out for a large hand equal to 50 cm against a small hand equal to 30 cm, or vice versa, retribution is carried out for a 20 cm hand against a 40 cm hand, or if half of a fingernail equal to 2 cm is cut off, it is cut off for half of the fingernail on the limb subject to retribution, while if the intention is to execute exactly 2 cm, the entire fingernail of the criminal, which is equal to 2 cm, may be cut off, and in neither case is there a ruling on paying or receiving the difference in the crime. Therefore, the principle of proportionality of punishment to the degree of responsibility, along with the procedure for executing retribution in similar cases, implies the need to determine a single indicator, namely the criminal, in the execution of retribution. This research, the ruling of Article 394 of the Criminal Code, It considers the principle of respecting the equality of length and width in the body subject to retribution to be contrary to jurisprudential and legal principles, and in addition, it considers the payment of blood money in relation to the excess of the crime if the length of the body subject to retribution is less than the length of the injured body of the victim to be an attack on the property of the criminal. However, it considers the ruling of the law regarding the truth of the title of the crime in the body subject to retribution to be in accordance with jurisprudential and legal principles. Therefore, it proposes to change Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code to read as follows: “It is necessary to observe the equality of length, width and depth in retribution for injuries. This equality is calculated and enforced on the criminal based on the name of the crime in depth and the ratio of the length and width of the crime to the total area of the body of the victim.”
Keywords
Main Subjects
)