نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
موسسه عالی فقه و علوم اسلامی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
One of the instances in which the attribution of a crime becomes ambiguous is when the cause intends to inflict harm on the victim (majni ‘alayh), but the victim, placed under duress, knowingly and voluntarily commits an act to preserve their own life, which ultimately results in the same harm being inflicted upon themselves. In such a situation, it is necessary to clarify whether the inflicted harm should be attributed to the cause or to the person acting under duress (mudtar). The need for this investigation arises from the fact that clarifying the relationship between the rule of duress and criminal liability carries significant implications in criminal law. This study, within the framework of jurisprudential knowledge and using an analytical and ijtihadi approach with library resources, aims to analyze the relationship between the non-prohibition of the act of the person under duress and the question of whether the duress exempts them from liability or not. The research findings indicate that the two reasons given for exempting the cause from liability are not valid. Among five reasons presented to establish the liability of the cause, only the argument based on intellectual conscience—that is, referring to the reason of rational intellect—holds true
کلیدواژهها [English]
