نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• عباس شیخ الاسلامی ¹
• رقیه ماستری فراهانی ²

¹ دانشیار گروه حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

² دانشجوی دکتری گروه حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

چکیده

هدف از انجام این پژوهش، بررسی پرونده ترور ویلیام مک‌کینلی-بیست و پنجمین رئیس‌جمهور ایالات متحده آمریکا- است. این ترور در سپتامبر سال 1901 میلادی توسط آنارشیست لهستانی تبار به وقوع پیوست. این مقاله، با رویکرد تطبیقی، نظریات مربوط به مسئولیت کیفری و علیت  را در نظام حقوقی ایالات متحده و فقه امامیه در مواجهه با این پرونده تحلیل می‌کند. اهمیت این پرونده، به‌ دلیل پیچیدگی‌های پزشکی و ابهامات حقوقی آن، نحوه و سرعت رسیدگی به این پرونده و مجازات عامل ترور، است. از این رو، این پژوهش، به منظور بررسی تطبیقی قواعد انتساب مسئولیت  در این پرونده در دو نظام حقوقی ایالات متحده آمریکا و فقه امامیه انجام شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که اولاً: رسیدگی قضایی به این پرونده، به سرعت و همراه با نقاط مبهم حقوقی بوده است و ثانیاً: در دو نظام حقوقی مذکور، نگاه متفاوتی به این موضوع از منظر مسئولیت کیفری و نقش خطای پزشکی در این پرونده وجود دارد. همچنین در این مقاله، تأثیر عوام‌گرایی کیفری و واکنش‌های اجتماعی پس از ترور در فرآیند رسیدگی قضایی مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. این مقاله، بر مفهوم تداخل اسباب، خطای قضایی و حدود مسئولیت حرفه‌ای پزشکان، متمرکز شده است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که مقررات پزشکی در نظام حقوقی ایالات متحده در آن زمان، ابتدایی بوده و بسیاری از عوامل مؤثر بر فوت مک‌کینلی مورد غفلت قرار گرفته است. در حالی که، فقه امامیه با تأکید بر رابطه علیت و نقش قصور پزشکی، مبانی استدلالی دقیق‌تری برای تحلیل این پرونده دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• ویلیام مک‌کینلی
• فقه امامیه
• ایالات متحده آمریکا
• مداخله در جنایت
• خطای پزشکی
• عوام‌گرایی کیفری

موضوعات

• حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Legal Analysis of President McKinley’s Assassination: Perspectives from the U.S. Legal System and Imami Jurisprudence

نویسندگان [English]

• Abbas Sheikholeslami ¹
• Roghayeh Masteri Farahani ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

² PhD Student, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Introduction and Problem Statement
The assassination of William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States in 1901, represents one of the most complex intersections of politics, medicine, and law in the history of criminal proceedings. Leon Czolgosz, a Polish-born anarchist, targeted the President with two gunshots; however, what distinguishes this case from a simple political assassination is the eight-day clinical course that followed the incident. The fundamental problem of this research arises from historical evidence and medical reports indicating that the first bullet did not cause severe injury and the second bullet lodged in a non-vital area. Nevertheless, McKinley's death resulted not from the direct impact of the shots, but from acute sepsis and subsequent internal organ failure. The core legal challenge lies in differentiating the role of Czolgosz's act as the "cause” from the role of the medical practitioners as the "direct agents within the chain of causation leading to death. By re-examining this case through the lenses of the U.S. legal system and the principles of Imami Jurisprudence, this article seeks to determine who bears the ultimate responsibility for the death and how the societal pressures of "Penal Populism" diverted the course of justice in this trial.
Methodology
Adopting a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach, this study examines historical trial documents, contemporary clinical reports, and classical jurisprudential texts. Regarding the U.S. legal framework, the foundations of criminal liability in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are analyzed. In the jurisprudential section, drawing upon the authoritative opinions of scholars such as Sheikh Tusi, Sahib al-Jawahir, and Shahid Thani, the rules governing the "concurrence of cause and direct agent," "physician's liability, and the "causal link" are analyzed to assess the capacity of both legal systems to handle intervening causes.
The findings of this research are categorized into three primary axes
First, within the realm of U.S. Criminal Law, it is observed that the proceedings took place in a highly volatile atmosphere, heavily influenced by the national trauma resulting from the assassination. Czolgosz was sentenced to death in a trial that lasted only two days, occurring just nine days after the President's passing. In this expedited trial, the "theory of causation" was applied in its most simplistic form; the court relied solely on the "But-for" test (asserting that but for the shooting, death would not have occurred), thereby validating the causal link while disregarding the gross medical malpractice—including the failure to utilize available diagnostic tools such as X-rays. In essence, the American legal framework of that era lacked the nuanced tools required to analyze "intervening factors" in high-profile political cases.
Second, within Imami Jurisprudence, the analysis of the case diverges significantly. According to jurisprudential rules, in the concurrence of a cause (the perpetrator) and a direct agent (the physician), the direct agent is generally held liable unless the cause is deemed "stronger". In this case, if it is established that the injuries would not have been fatal under proper care, but the physician's failure to adhere to technical standards and utilize available equipment led to lethal sepsis, the causal link between the perpetrator's act and the death is severed. Through the concept of "Customary Attribution", Imami Fiqh ensures that the liability arising from medical negligence is not ignored simply because the crime was initiated by the perpetrator. From this perspective, if the physician's act is sufficiently impactful within the hierarchy of causation to attribute the death to "deficient treatment," the perpetrator would be held liable only for the initial injury, rather than the homicide.
Third, the issue of Penal Populism is examined. This research demonstrates how public indignation and the perceived necessity to restore damaged political authority led the judiciary to bypass legal rigor. The unconventional speed of the trial and the denial of the defense's right to present claims regarding medical error illustrate the triumph of a "vengeful penal policy" over "procedural justice."
The final results of this research indicate that the McKinley assassination case is a quintessential example of "systematic judicial error" driven by political exigencies. While the U.S. legal system in 1901 adopted a simplistic approach, attributing all responsibility to the perpetrator, Imami Jurisprudence—with its precise tools for analyzing the "concurrence of factors"—allows for an accurate determination of the respective shares of liability between the perpetrator's act and the physician's negligence. This comparative conclusion suggests that had jurisprudential standards been applied, the medical staff would likely have faced civil and criminal liability due to professional negligence. This article emphasizes that in major political cases, the "causal link" must not be sacrificed to political imperatives or the emotional reactions of society.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• William McKinley Assassination
• Imami Jurisprudence
• U.S. Legal System
• Criminal Complicity
• Medical Negligence
• Penal Populism