تاثير رضايت پيشين مجنيٌ‌عليه در سقوط قصاص و ديه

Impact of the Victimʹʹs Previous Consent on Lapse of Retaliation and Blood-Money

از مسايل مطرح در حقوق كيفري و فقه جزايي، تاثير يا عدم تاثير رضايت پيشين مجنيٌ‌عليه بر ايراد جنايت بر وي در سقوط قصاص و ديه است؛ هرچند فقهاي اماميه و اكثر فقهاي عامه، چنين اذن و رضايتي را حرام دانسته، از منظراحكام وضعي (قصاص و ديه)، در اين باره سه نظر وجود دارد. در حالي كه بسياري از فقهاي اماميه و عامه به سقوط قصاص و ديه قايل‌اند، برخي به ثبوت قصاص فتوا داده، عده‌اي نيز به ثبوت ديه قايل شده‌اند. با وجود اختلاف نظر در فتاوي، قانونگذار كه بايد يكي از آراي موجه را برگزيند، سكوت اختيار كرده و تنها مادّه‌اي كه مقررات مشابهي با بحث مذكور دارد، مادّه 268 قانون مجازات اسلامي است. به نظر مي‌رسد مقررات اين مادّه فقط به عفو پس از جنايت مربوط بوده، درباره رضايت پيشين جرم، ساكت است. اين نوشتار مي‌كوشد به تبيين، تحليل و ارزيابي هريك از ادله اقوال مذكور با رويكردي كاملاً استدلالي بپردازد و به جهت تاثير مستقيم تعيين صاحب بدوي قصاص، آراي فقهي در اين باره بررسي و در نهايت، راهكاري تقنيني براي برون‌رفت از خلا قانوني ارايه گردد.

One of the subjects discussed in the penal law and penal jurisprudence is that whether the victimʹs previous consent about the crime committed against him is of influence or no influence on lapse of retaliation and blood-money. Though according to Imami jurisprudence and most jurists of other schools, such consent is unlawful, if viewed from the perspective of positive laws (retaliation and blood-money), there are three opinions in this regard. While most Imami jurists as well as jurists of other schools believe in lapse of retaliation and blood-money, some jurists have said that the criminal should be retaliated, and some others believe that blood-money should be paid. Since there are different opinions, the legislator has to choose either one of the justified opinions or keeps silence. The only article in which some rules may be found that are similar to the above points is the Article 268 of the Islamic Criminal Law. It seems that rules posed in this Article concerns only remission after crime and has nothing to do with the previous consent. Adopting a fully argumentative approach, the present writing tries to explain, analyze, and evaluate arguments posed for the above opinions. And since if the primary owner of the right of retaliation is known, it will be of direct influence, the related juridical ideas will be discussed and finally a legislative solution will be provided to bridge this legal gap.