واکاوی فقهی موضوع حد مسکر و مجازات تکرار آن در قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب 1392، از احتیاط بی مورد تا احتیاط ننمودن (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
استعمال و استفاده ی مسکر از گناهانی است که در آیات و روایات متعددی زشتی و حرمت آن بیان و تأکید شده و مجازات شرب آن هشتاد ضربه شلاق بیان شده است. پس از انقلاب، قانونگذار بر اساس اصل چهارم قانون اساسی به جرم انگاری این جرم در قانون حدود و قصاص و مقررات آن مصوب ۱۳۶۱ و قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب ۱۳۷۰ و قانون مجازات اسلامی ۱۳۹۲ پرداخت. قانون اخیر نسبت به دو قانون سابق تغییراتی را در این زمینه ایجاد نموده که اهم آنها حدانگاری مصرف مسکر بجای خصوص خوردن و آشامیدن و حکم به قتل برای تکرار این جرم حدی در بار چهارم به جای بار سوم است. در این پژوهش با بهره گیری از منابع و آرای فقهی به تحلیل نکات مرتبط به تحقق موضوع حد مسکر و مجازات تکرار شرب یا مصرف مسکر پرداخته شده است. در مجموع با توجه به مبانی فقهی به نظر می رسد هر دو تغییر نادرست است و تغییر اول احتیاط ننمودن در جایی است که باید احتیاط نمود و تغییر دوم احتیاط بی جاست در جایی که نباید احتیاط نمود.A Jurisprudential Analysis of Hadd Punishment for Intoxication and Its Repetition in the 2013 Islamic Penal Code: From Excessive Caution to Lack of Caution
Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the legislator, grounded in Article 4 of the Constitution, criminalized the consumption and use of intoxicants. This criminalization is enshrined in various legal texts, including the 1982 Penal Code ( Hudud and Qisas ), the 1991 Islamic Penal Code, and most recently, the 2013 Islamic Penal Code. The latest iteration, enacted in 2013, introduced several innovations in the criminalization of intoxicants, prompting a range of writings that defend, critique, and analyze these changes. However, despite the extensive discourse, there remains a lack of a comprehensive jurisprudential analysis rooted in legal reasoning. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to provide a holistic and rigorous examination by reviewing the views of Islamic jurists, drawing upon the existing hadiths , and adhering to foundational jurisprudential principles. Methodology: This article adopts a library-based research methodology and a descriptive-analytical approach. It begins by reviewing the legislative history surrounding the use and consumption of intoxicants. It then proceeds to analyze the definition of intoxicants from both a linguistic and legal perspective. Subsequently, the paper explores the opinions of Islamic jurists on the application of hadd punishments for intoxicants, as well as the rulings on repeated consumption, grounded in hadiths and related reports. The article concludes with practical suggestions and effective solutions. Findings: The 2013 amendments introduced two significant innovations regarding intoxicants in Iranian legislation: one concerns the definition of the subject for Hadd punishment—shifting from “drinking” to “consumption”—and the other revises the punishment for repeated consumption, altering the threshold for the death penalty from the third to the fourth offense. From a jurisprudential standpoint, both changes appear problematic. The first change disregards necessary caution in areas where caution is warranted, while the second introduces caution in a context where it is not needed. Innovation: Distinction Between “Obligatory Rulings” ( Taklifi ) and “Situational Rulings” ( Wadh’i ): A critical analysis of the distinction between “obligatory rulings” ( Taklifi ) and “situational rulings” (wadh’i) reveals that there is no inherent link between the two. Specifically, the prohibition of intoxicants does not necessarily necessitate the application of Hadd punishment. Not every prohibition requires punitive measures, and the criminalization of intoxicants should not automatically entail the application of hududd penalties. Legislator’s Innovation in the Subject of hadd Punishment: The legislator’s decision to expand the definition of Hadd punishment for intoxicants from “drinking” to “consumption” results in a broader scope of criminalization within the hudud laws. This expansion deviates from the clear guidance found in the hadiths and, as such, violates the intent of Article 4 of the Iranian Constitution. By broadening the definition of intoxicants to include substances beyond alcohol, such as narcotic drugs like hashish and heroin, the law increases the number of individuals potentially subjected to hadd punishment, including the death penalty after repeated offenses. Conclusion: The shift from criminalizing the act of “drinking” to any form of “consumption,” coupled with the imposition of the same Hadd punishment, leads to a considerable expansion of criminalization. This shift is particularly concerning since it extends to narcotic substances like hashish and heroin, thus opening the door for individuals consuming these substances to be subject to hadd punishment, including the death penalty after the fourth offense. However, upon reviewing both legal arguments and hadiths on the subject, no compelling evidence supports this broader application of criminalization. The jurisprudential rulings on intoxicants do not endorse such an expansion, and there is a lack of sufficient justification for this change. Furthermore, the increase in punishment for repeated consumption, after the initial hadd punishment has already been applied, raises significant issues. The ambiguous wording in Article 136, which suggests the death penalty for the fourth offense, lacks solid support from hadiths or valid jurisprudential interpretations. Historically, the death penalty was only applied after the third offense, not the fourth. Therefore, this change, particularly regarding repeated consumption, seems unwarranted and unsupported by the jurisprudential and hadith -based framework. In conclusion, the shift in criminalizing the “consumption” of intoxicants, as opposed to just “drinking,” along with the alteration of the penalty for repeated offenses, represents an overreach in criminal law that lacks adequate legal or jurisprudential backing. The legal amendments of 2013, while aiming to address the issue of intoxicants, ultimately expand criminalization beyond what is justifiable by Islamic jurisprudence, leading to a potential miscarriage of justice.
تبلیغات
