امكان‌‌سنجي كاربست نهادهاي جزايي نوپيدا در حدود

Feasibility Study of Utilization of Modern Criminal Institutions in Islamic Prescribed Punishments (Hodud)

در تلقي رايج، تغييرناپذير قلمداد كردن مجازات‌هاي حدي سبب شده است تا نهادهاي جزايي نوپيدا در حدود راه پيدا نكند. اين در حالي است كه اين نهادها اغلب از آن‌روي كه عقلايي‌اند در تعزيرات جريان مي‌يابند. اين پژوهش با رويكرد تحليلي ـ انتقادي نشان مي‌دهد كه ثبات كيفرهاي حدي مانع ورود نهادهاي جزايي نوپيدا به آنها نيست. تمسك به اطلاق ادله‌ تعيين‌كننده‌ كيفرهاي حدي، دليل مناسبي براي نفي جريان نهادهاي جزايي نوپيدا در حدود نيست. حتي بر فرض پذيرش ثبات و تغييرنابرداري كيفرهاي حدي، شارع مقدس اسلام در پي نفي جريان نهادهاي جزايي نوپيدا در حدود نبوده است. مقاله همچنين نشان مي‌دهد كه احكامي مانند عدم جواز تعطيل حد يا تأخير در اجراي آن، مانع كاربست نهادهايي مانند تعويق و تعليق مجازات و ممنوعيت مجازات مضاعف در حدود نيست.

In traditional view in Islamic jurisprudence, Prescribed Punishments (Hodud) are often understood as unchangeable and inflexible. This, in its turn, has led the modern criminal institutions not to be applied in prescribed punishments. Indeed, while modern criminal entities are welcomed in discretionary punishments (Tazirat), they have been hardly welcomed in Hodud. The result has been a more differential system of punishment containing had and Tazir with different laws and rules. Having chosen an analytical-critical methodology, this paper shows that even inflexibility of prescribed punishments is not a cause for modern criminal entities not to be applied in them. Reliance upon unconditionality (Itlaq) of the evidences related to prescribed punishments is not a sufficient and convincing argument to put prescribed punishments far from the modern entities. Also this paper shows that impermissibility of postponement of Had and its cancelation, as insisted in religious texts, is not inconsistent with criminal concepts like deferment of judgement, suspension of punishment and prohibition of double punishment.