Esmaeil Haditabar; Maryam Mehri Matankolaei
Abstract
Abortion is known as a crime in numerous legal systems in the world. Criminalization basis is different due to religious, ethical and philosophical points of view and also several lawyers are pro or against criminalization and decriminalization of abortion. Abortion is related to the fetus life from ...
Read More
Abortion is known as a crime in numerous legal systems in the world. Criminalization basis is different due to religious, ethical and philosophical points of view and also several lawyers are pro or against criminalization and decriminalization of abortion. Abortion is related to the fetus life from one hand, and therefore protection of fetus life and its respect is the most important basis of criminalization. On the other hand, supporting mother’s rights and respect her freedom is the reason of decriminalization of abortion. The first group or pro- life lawyers form their debates on the basis of refraining from harm others which is known as “harm principle”. The second group reason concerning free will that is called “liberalism”. Thus, “harm principle” and “free will” are against each other. The main issue of this difference and disagreement is the concept and meaning of the fetus legal personality and the time it begins. Accordingly, if one believes that the fetus does not have legal personality there will be no conflict. Hence, this essay is to investigate “harm principle” and “free will” in criminalization of abortion.
Mohammadjafar Habibzadeh; Mahmood Saber; Hossien Samie
Abstract
The demands of today's world and the Commitment of dangerous and harmful crimes by legal entities and the need for appropriate compensation for victims of damage and judicial -criminological considerations, have convinced legal systems such to accept criminal responsibility of legal entities. ...
Read More
The demands of today's world and the Commitment of dangerous and harmful crimes by legal entities and the need for appropriate compensation for victims of damage and judicial -criminological considerations, have convinced legal systems such to accept criminal responsibility of legal entities. It is clear for credit institutions including banks, as well as other legal entities under certain conditions, to be eligible for criminal responsibility. But accepting criminal liability for credit institutions as legal entities, is accompanied by this fundamental question: what are the conditions and criteria for assigning criminal liability to credit institutions as legal entities? Representing approach as a criteria for attributing criminal liability to credit institutions as legal entities, is approved by the Iranian legislature in Article 143 of the Islamic Penal Code, but due to flaws in this theory, including the difficulty of identifying responsible individuals and complicated structure of credit institutions, accepting of corporate responsibility theory is consistent with the basics of Identifying of criminal liability for credit institutions as legal entities and the principles of justice and fairness. At the same time, imposing criminal liability on the banks and credit institutions, requires that the legal representative of bank or credit union, "the" or "in the interests" of the bank or credit union as a legal person, commits a crime. The concept of legal representative of Credit Institutions, realization time of legal personality of governmental and non-governmental Credit Institutions, the Conditions of criminal liability realization, have ambiguities that critical analysis of them, is concerned with this article.
