مطالعه تطبیقیِ علم قاضی در فقه امامیه و حقوق کیفری ایران و اروپا (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
زمینه و هدف: علم قاضی گاهی علم اقناعی ناشی از ادلّه شرعی است. این نوع علم حسی در طول ادلّه قرار می گیرد و در مرحله بررسی دلیلیّت یا ارزش گذاری دلیل به کار می رود. پس از اثبات دلیلیّت، دیگر مجالی برای عدم تمسک به دلیل باقی نمی ماند و قاضی بر مبنای دلیل قانونی حکم صادر می کند. علم قاضی گاهی ناشی از امارات قضایی است. این نوع علم حسی، یک دلیل مستقل و به عبارتی در عرض سایر ادلّه قرار می گیرد. حجیّت این نوع دلیل در جرائم حق الهی و حق الناس همواره از موضوعاتی مورد مناقشه بین فقها اعم از فقهای متقدم و متأخر در پرتو فقه مقارن است که از نوع علم حصولی و مستخرج از محتویات پرونده است. در حقوق کیفری اروپایی نیز علم قاضی ناشی از امارات قضایی و ادلّه علمی اصولاً مثبت انواع بزهکاری است. در حال حاضر، حقوق کیفری ایران ترکیبی از تفکر فقهی و اندیشه اروپایی است. هدف پژوهش حاضر، اصلاح مبانی معرفت شناختی علم قاضی در سنجه مطالعات مقارن های تطبیقی است تا از این رهگذر خلأ قانونی مشخص و راهکارهای نوین ارائه شود.روش: پژوهش حاضر از نوع توصیفی و تحلیلی بوده و تحلیل اطلاعات به صورت کتابخانه های و فیش برداری انجام شده است.یافته ها: این پژوهش نشان می دهد که بی توجهی مقنن به الگوها و اصول حاکم بر حقوق تطبیقی در اقتباس از هر یک از انگاره ها از حیث قانون گذاری و قاعده سازی تضادهایی را به همراه داشته است که بدعت گذاری در نظام موضوعیّت ادلّه با پذیرش علم برخلاف آن و تعبّدی کردن ادلّه شرعی در اثبات جرائم تعزیری از جمله آن هاست.نتایج: مطالعه تطبیقی نشان داده که در فقه امامیه با وجود اینکه امکان خروج قاضی مجتهد را از بی طرفی بعید دانسته اند اما قاضی می تواند به علم شخصی خود استناد کند، در حقوق کیفری ایران نیز رویه قضایی بر حجیت علم قاضی بوده و آن را از باب قاعده تراجیح بر سایر ادلّه متقدم دانسته اند. در حقوق اروپایی، نظام ادلّه اقناعی اصل و علم قاضی مثبت کلّیه جرائم است و توسل قاضی به علم شخصی برخلاف اصل بی طرفی است، در «کامن لا» استثنائاً در مواردی که قاضی در آن زمینه تخصص داشته باشد مورد پذیرش است و در حقوق رومی ژرمنی معیار اثبات جرم، اقناع وجدان قاضی است.A comparative study of the knowledge of the judge in Imami jurisprudence and criminal law in Iran and Europe
Background and purpose: The science of the judge is sometimes the science of persuasion due to Shari'i evidence. This type of sensory science is placed during proofs and is used in the phase of checking evidence or valuing evidence. After proving the reason, there is no more room for not sticking to the reason and the judge issues a verdict based on the legal reason. The knowledge of the judge is sometimes derived from the judicial emirate. This type of sensory science is an independent reason, in other words, it is placed in front of other reasons. The validity of this type of evidence in the crimes of divine right and human right is always one of the disputed issues between the jurists, including the early and late jurists, in the light of comparative jurisprudence, which is of the type of acquired knowledge and extracted from the contents of the case. In European criminal law, the judge's knowledge is derived from judicial emirates and scientific evidence is basically positive for all types of crimes. Currently, Iranian criminal law is a combination of jurisprudence and European thought. The purpose of the current research is to revise the epistemological foundations of the science of the judge in the measure of comparative comparative studies in order to identify the legal gap and provide new solutions.Method: The current research is of descriptive and analytical type and data analysis was done in the form of libraries and flash sampling.Findings: This research shows that the legislator's lack of attention to the patterns and principles governing comparative law in the adaptation of each of the concepts in terms of legislation and rule-making has led to contradictions that innovation in the system of objectivity of evidence with the acceptance of science contrary to it and worshiping Shari'i evidences in proving penal crimes are among them.Results: A comparative study has shown that in Imami jurisprudence, even though the possibility of a mujtahid judge's departure from neutrality is considered unlikely, the judge can rely on his personal knowledge. In Iranian criminal law, the judicial procedure is based on the validity of the judge's knowledge and it is based on They have considered the principle of preference over other evidences. In European law, the system of persuasive evidence is the principle and the judge's positive knowledge of all crimes, and the judge's appeal to personal knowledge is against the principle of impartiality. In common law, it is accepted exceptionally in cases where the judge has expertise in that field, and in Roman Germanic law, it is the standard. Proving a crime is persuading the judge's conscience.Method: The current research is of descriptive and analytical type and data analysis was done in the form of libraries and flash sampling.Findings: This research shows that the legislator's lack of attention to the patterns and principles governing comparative law in the adaptation of each of the concepts in terms of legislation and rule-making has led to contradictions that innovation in the system of objectivity of evidence with the acceptance of science contrary to it and worshiping Shari'i evidences in proving penal crimes are among them.Results: A comparative study has shown that in Imami jurisprudence, even though the possibility of a mujtahid judge's departure from neutrality is considered unlikely, the judge can rely on his personal knowledge. In Iranian criminal law, the judicial procedure is based on the validity of the judge's knowledge and it is based on They have considered the principle of preference over other evidences. In European law, the system of persuasive evidence is the principle and the judge's positive knowledge of all crimes, and the judge's appeal to personal knowledge is against the principle of impartiality. In common law, it is accepted exceptionally in cases where the judge has expertise in that field, and in Roman Germanic law, it is the standard. Proving a crime is persuading the judge's conscience.
تبلیغات
