Jurisprudential possibility measuring the removal of the prescribed punishments by perpetrator repentance after proving the crime

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

• Esmaeil rahiminejad

Associate Professor of Tabriz University Law Department

10.22067/jfiqh.2023.81364.1552

Abstract

Abstract:
There is a difference of opinion among the jurists regarding the removal or not of the prescribed) punishments by the perpetrator repentance after proving the crime. The famous jurists believe that the punishment must be executed if the crime is proven by testimony or by the knowledge of the judge, and in case the crime is proven by confession, they allow the ruler to pardon the criminal or execute the punishment.The Iranian legislator has followed this famous theory of jurists in the Islamic Penal Code of 1392. The important issue of this research is this on what basis do famous jurists believe that prescribed punishments should be imposed, and to what extent have their reasons scientific validity? From a jurisprudential point of view, is it possible to talk about the possibility of removing the punishments by repentance after proving the crime by testimony and knowledge of the judge. Using the descriptive-analytical method and with a critical approach, this article has scientifically examined each of these theories and has come to the conclusion that the famous theory of jurists due to having basic defects and also the theory of the ruler authority due to its departure from the subject of repentance, do not have scientific validity. Therefore, "the theory of the removing of punishments by the perpetrator repentance after proving the crime" should be the basis of legislating and policy-making and the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code be revised and corrected.

Keywords

• Keywords: Prescribed punishments
• Repentance of the perpetrator
• Proving the crime
• removal of punishment
• Testimony
• Knowledge of the judge

Main Subjects

• Jurisprudence and criminal law

---