Criminal Law
Sayyed Hosein Ale Taha; Hosein Aghaei; aref bashiri
Abstract
There are fundamental questions and obvious differences between the jurists regarding the guarantee or non-guarantee against the death of the convict and the additional punishment imposed on her during the issuance or execution of the sentence: Well-known jurists have considered the loss of one's blood ...
Read More
There are fundamental questions and obvious differences between the jurists regarding the guarantee or non-guarantee against the death of the convict and the additional punishment imposed on her during the issuance or execution of the sentence: Well-known jurists have considered the loss of one's blood to be based on the rule that "No Blood Money for the One Killed Due to Legal Punishment". Some jurists also citing some religious generalities, have believed to Lack of guarantees pent to Lack of extremes in Punishment and a few jurists, such as Sheikh Mufid, have distinguished between the rights of God and the rights of the people. This difference of opinion among scholars has also been transferred to the Islamic Penal Code, and there are contradictions in some legal articles that need to be examined. This article critiques each point of view in a descriptive-analytical way, along with their documentation and analysis of legal materials. The author's chosen opinion in substantiation of Guarantee for Punishment leading to the deprivation of life wherein permeate of wounds is not Arising from negligence. This claim is based on the priority of the evidence of the sanctity of the Muslim person's blood over other evidence, the generalities of the murder, and also agrees with the scholarly view of Khansari in one of her possibilities and It explicitly complies with Article 13 of the Islamic Penal Code and Note 185 of the Islamic Penal Code. According to the law, if deprive of life arising from Punishment is after warning of Judge enforcing the penalty, It removes the guarantee from him.
Atefeh Ajory
Abstract
Sometimes before compensation for moral damages and before the final decision to be issued, the victim dies. In such a situation, the main question is that if the inheritors can claim compensation for them (survival damages). Survival damages are those damages incurred by the decedent in his/her living. ...
Read More
Sometimes before compensation for moral damages and before the final decision to be issued, the victim dies. In such a situation, the main question is that if the inheritors can claim compensation for them (survival damages). Survival damages are those damages incurred by the decedent in his/her living. Survivors may claim a wrongful death action against the tortfeasor in addition to survival action for non-pecuniary losses which they suffered in the result of this event (wrongful death damages). Wrongful death damages are those damages that arise as a result of the injury or death of direct victim. In acceptance of this type of claims and who are entitled to it, there is no consensus. Since blood-money institution exists in our legal system in the case of physical injuries and death, the status of blood-money should be considered in the ssurvivors claims. Since today the events leading to injuries and death frequently happen and the importance of the moral damages caused, in this article, we discuss the claims for such damages from the survivors.
Nafise Shooshinasab; Abbas Mirshekari
Abstract
In this research we have tried to investigate if the victim’s predisposition would influence civil liability of tortfeasor. In exact words “Predisposition” means the unusual physical situation of the victim before damages are incurred to him. Sometimes the tortfeasor intensify victim’s ...
Read More
In this research we have tried to investigate if the victim’s predisposition would influence civil liability of tortfeasor. In exact words “Predisposition” means the unusual physical situation of the victim before damages are incurred to him. Sometimes the tortfeasor intensify victim’s unusual situation and sometimes he changes the nature of his disability. We reached to a conclusion according to which, except causing perfect blindness which is effective in intensifying tortfeasor’s liability, in other situations, predisposition is effective in reducing tortfeasor’s liability. As a result, we should suffice to strict interpretation in the case of blindness.