ارزیابی اعمال عدالت ترمیمی در پرونده های همسرآزاری در ایران (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
اگرچه خشونت خانگی بویژه همسرآزاری، یکی از مهم ترین دغدغه های اجتماعی عصر حاضر به شمار می رود، در حقوق ایران، همسرآزاری مستقلاً جرم انگاری نشده و مصادیق آن، تحت عناوین مجرمانه ی عمومی (ضرب وجرح، توهین، تهدید و...) به فرایندهای کیفری راه می یابند. حال آنکه ضمانت اجراهای کیفری جرایم عمومی برای تأمین اصلی ترین نیاز بزهدیدگان (توقف خشونت بدون تهدید خانواده به فروپاشی)، کافی و مؤثر به نظر نمی رسند. این پژوهش با رویکردی توصیفی تحلیلی به منظور واکاوی امکان کابرد عدالت ترمیمی در پرونده های همسرآزاری و شناسایی مزیت ها و چالش های احتمالی آن، صورت گرفته و داده های مورد نیاز، از رهگذر مطالعه ی پرونده های همسرآزاری و انجام مصاحبه های عمیق با بزهدیدگان، قضات و کارشناسان گردآوری شده است. یافته های پژوهش نشان دادند که عدالت ترمیمی به مراتب بهتر از عدالت کیفری می تواند به نیازهای همسران آزاردیده پاسخ دهد و قانون مجازات اسلامی و قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری نیز از ظرفیت های مناسبی برای کاربرد عدالت ترمیمی در پرونده های همسرآزاری برخوردارند. با این حال، فراهم نبودن بسترهای اجرایی مناسب، سبب شده تا در عمل، از ظرفیت های قانونی موجود برای حل وفصل مسالمت آمیز پرونده های همسرآزاری بهره ی چندانی برده نشود و در معدود موارد ارجاع شده به فرایندهای ترمیمی نیز، به علت بی توجهی به اصول بنیادین عدالت ترمیمی، حصول نتیجه ی مطلوب در هاله ای از ابهام قرار گیرد.Evaluation of Restorative Justice in Domestic Violence in Iran
A common form of domestic violence is intimate partner violence. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), in industrialized countries, about 24% of married women have experienced physical or sexual abuse by their husbands at least once. This rate increases to approximately 37% (about 1 in 3 women) in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran. However, domestic violence is not explicitly criminalized under Iranian criminal law. As a result, such cases are typically prosecuted under general offences such as assault and battery, threats, insults, and slander. Yet, the penalties for these general offences often prove insufficient and ineffective in addressing domestic violence, due to the unique nature of spousal abuse—including the marital relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the repetitive character of the violence, and the broader impact on third parties such as children. On the one hand, requiring a wealthy husband to pay diya (compensation) to the victim in cases of physical assault, or a fine to the government in cases of insult or slander, neither alleviates the victim’s suffering nor deters the perpetrator from repeating the abuse. On the other hand, when the husband is insolvent, the victim receives no diya, and in other cases, the frequent judicial tendency to suspend sentences without mandating any corrective programs further undermines the deterrent effect of punishment. Additionally, the criminal justice system in Iran is offender-oriented and does not actively involve the victim in the justice process. Filing a criminal complaint against a husband may also threaten the survival of the marriage, which the wife may not wish to end through divorce. Given the inefficiencies of the current criminal justice system—both in preventing reoffending and addressing victims’ needs—several critical questions arise: Is it possible to apply restorative justice within Iran’s criminal law framework? If so, what are the potential benefits of restorative justice in such cases? And what factors must be considered to ensure the effectiveness of restorative justice in addressing domestic violence? This research employs a qualitative approach and a descriptive-analytical method to explore the applicability of restorative justice in domestic violence cases, identify its benefits, and examine the challenges that may arise in its implementation. Methodolgy To answer the above questions, in addition to using library resources, two other methods were employed for data collection: Content analysis of 25 criminal and family court cases related to domestic violence, and in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with a diverse group of stakeholders, including 45 victims, 20 judges, 15 attorneys, and 20 family health specialists (psychiatrists, psychologists, couples therapists, counselors, and social workers). Findings The research findings indicate that restorative justice can address the needs and expectations of domestic violence victims more effectively than the traditional criminal justice system. Moreover, there are existing legal provisions within Iran’s Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that provide a foundation for applying restorative justice. However, the lack of proper infrastructure and implementation mechanisms—such as insufficient and inappropriate spaces for restorative meetings and the absence of training programs for judges and attorneys—has significantly hindered the practical application of restorative justice in domestic violence cases. Even in the few cases where mediation has been attempted, failure to adhere to the core principles of restorative justice—including voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the neutrality of mediators and facilitators—has resulted in poor outcomes and undermined the legitimacy of the process. Conclusion To make restorative justice a viable and effective option in domestic violence cases, it is essential to establish appropriate institutional frameworks and to employ trained, experienced facilitators. In other words, successful implementation of restorative processes in cases of spousal abuse not only requires raising awareness of the benefits of restorative justice but also depends on the development of proper infrastructure and specialized training for facilitators and mediators who can competently manage these sensitive sessions. The central recommendation of this research is to promote the expansion of mediation institutions across cities, train mediators and specialized facilitators for handling domestic violence cases, and to outsource restorative justice functions—whenever possible—to independent mediation institutions rather than relying solely on entities embedded within the criminal justice system, such as public prosecutor’s offices and courts.
تبلیغات
