كليدواژه :
ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﮐﯿﻔﺮي , ﺗﻌﻤﺪ , اﺿﻄﺮار , پيامدهاي فقهي و حقوقي
چكيده فارسي :
در ﻓﻘﻪ و ﺣﻘﻮق ﮐﯿﻔﺮي، اﺿﻄﺮار را ازﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻪي ﺟﺮم ﺑﻪﺷﻤﺎر آوردهاﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﻨﺎي آن، ﻓﺮد ﻣﻀﻄﺮ در ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ اﻗﺪاﻣﺎت ﺧﻮد ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﮐﯿﻔﺮي ﻧﺨﻮاﻫﺪ داﺷﺖ. در ﻋﯿﻦ ﺣﺎل در ﻣﻮاردي ﮐﻪ ﺑﺘﻮان ﻋﻨﺼﺮ »ﺗﻌﻤﺪ« را در ﭘﯿﺪاﯾﺶ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ اﺿﻄﺮار دﺧﯿﻞ داﻧﺴﺖ، ﺳﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﮐﯿﻔﺮي رخ ﻧﺨﻮاﻫﺪ داد. ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﮔﺴﺘﺮهي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯾﯽ »ﺗﻌﻤﺪ« از ﻣﻮارد اﺧﺘﻼﻓﯽ ﻣﯿﺎن ﺻﺎﺣﺐﻧﻈﺮان ﮐﯿﻔﺮي اﺳﺖ؛ در ﻗﺮآن ﮐﺮﯾﻢ، اﯾﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ در آﯾﺎت ﭘﻨﺞﮔﺎﻧﻪي اﺿﻄﺮار ﻣﻮرد اﺷﺎره ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ و ﻣﻔﺴﺮان و ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﮐﻮﺷﯿﺪهاﻧﺪ اﺟﻤﺎل ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯾﯽ واژﮔﺎن اﯾﻦ آﯾﺎت را ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃﻪ ﺑﺮﻃﺮف ﮐﻨﻨﺪ؛ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻓﻘﻬﯽ در اﯾﻦ زﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑﻪﺷﺪت ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ از آﯾﺎت ﯾﺎد ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮده و ﺑﻪﻧﻮﻋﯽ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮي ﻓﻘﻬﯽ از آﯾﺎت اﺿﻄﺮار ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. در اﯾﻦ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎر، ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روش ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ- ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯽ، ﺿﻤﻦ ﺗﺒﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ آراي ﻓﻘﻬﺎ و ﻣﻔﺴﺮان، راهﺣﻠﯽ ﺑﺮاي رﻓﻊ اﺑﻬﺎم ﯾﺎد ﺷﺪه اراﺋﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﺑﺪﯾﻦ ﺑﯿﺎن ﮐﻪ ﻗﯿﻮد آﯾﺎت اﺿﻄﺮار داراي ﻫﻢﭘﻮﺷﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﻮده و ﻣﯽﺑﺎﯾﺴﺖ ﻗﺪر ﻣﺸﺘﺮك و ﻣﺘﯿﻘﻦ از ﻫﻤﻪي آنﻫﺎ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﯾﮏ ﻣﻘﯿِﺪ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺑﺮاي ﺣﮑﻢ راﻓﻌﯿﺖ اﺿﻄﺮار در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﻮد. ﻟﺬا ﺗﻨﻬﺎ اﯾﺠﺎد اﺿﻄﺮار ﺑﻪﻗﺼﺪ ارﺗﮑﺎب ﻓﻌﻞ ﺣﺮام ﯾﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﮔﺰﯾﺮي از ارﺗﮑﺎب آنرا ﻣﯽﺗﻮان ﺗﻌﻤﺪ در اﯾﺠﺎد اﺿﻄﺮار داﻧﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ در اﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻻت، ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﮐﯿﻔﺮي ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎن ﺑﺎﻗﯽ ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﻣﺎﻧﺪ.
چكيده لاتين :
In jurisprudence and criminal law, necessity is considered among the causes of criminalization, based on which, the distressed person will not have any criminal liabilities for his/her measures., if the “intention” element. However, in cases where the "intention" element can be considered involved in the emergence of the state of necessity, the exclusion of the criminal liability will not be happened. The determination of the semantic range of necessity is a controversial issue among the criminal authorities; In the Holy Qur'an, this issue is noted in the quintuple verses of necessity, and interpreters and jurists have tried to resolve the semantic uncertainty of the words in these verses considering the relevant regulations; jurisprudential topics also was strongly affected by the mentioned verses in this context, and they are a kind of jurisprudential interpretation of necessity verses. In this manuscript, by using the analytical-descriptive method, while explaining the merits of the awards of jurists and interpreters, a solution is presented to resolve the ambiguity mentioned above. Hence, the terms necessity verses have semantics overlapping and the common and positive values of all of them should be considered as general particulars for the verdict of necessity. Therefore, only making a necessity with the intention of perpetrating an illicit action or by knowing its ineluctability to commit it can be considered intention in making a necessity, and in these situations, the criminal liability will remain.
