ارزیابی تعدد مادی از منظر قانون کاهش مجازات حبس تعزیری، چالش ها و راهکارها (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
با اجرایی شدن قانون کاهش مجازات حبس تعزیری مصوب 1399 مقنن تغییرات بسیاری را در قواعد تعدد مادی جرایم موجب تعزیر اعمال کرده است، به نحوی که این تغییر ملاک در تعیین مجازات و نیز تشدید و تخفیف مجازات و چرایی تفکیک میان جرایم مختلف از مشابه، قضات و حقوقدانان را با چالش های علمی و عملی مختلفی مواجه کرده است؛ این ابهامات، استنباط های متفاوتی را از ماده ی ۱۳۴ ق.م.ا اصلاحی در پی داشته که می تواند موجب تضییع حقوق متهمان گردد. در واقع سؤال اصلی این پژوهش این است: ماده ی ۱۳۴ اصلاحی چه ابهامات و چالش هایی را به همراه دارد و چه راهکارهایی را جهت برون رفت از آن ها می توان ارائه داد؟ در این پژوهش به شیوه ی توصیفی-تحلیلی سعی شده ضمن تبیین مقررات تعدد مادی جرایم موجب تعزیر در قانون حاضر، به بررسی مهمترین چالش های موجود در این نهاد از جمله تشخیص جرایم مختلف از مشابه، نحوه ی شمارش چند جرم مشابه از مختلف، زمان تشخیص جرایم متعدد جهت اعمال مقررات تعدد جرم، بررسی عطف به ماسبق شدن یا نشدن قواعد تعدد مادی جرم در قلمروی حاکمیت قوانین جزایی متعدد، ملاک تحقق تعدد جرم از حیث ضرورت یا عدم ضرورت فاصله ی زمانی در رفتارهای ارتکابی متعدد، جمع هم زمان تعدد و تکرار جرم، پرداخته شود.Assessing Phenomenal Multiplicity in Light of the Law on Reducing Imprisonment Punishments: Challenges and Solution
The recent implementation of the law aimed at reducing imprisonment penalties, as approved by the legislator, has brought about numerous changes to the principles governing the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment, especially when compared to the regulations in place in 1392 . These modifications in the criteria for determining punishment, along with the intensification and reduction of penalties and the rationale behind differentiating between various crimes and their similar counterparts, have presented both judges and legal scholars with a wide range of theoretical and practical challenges. These ambiguities have resulted in divergent interpretations of Article 134 of the Amended Criminal Code, which has, in turn, led to potential harm to the rights of the accused. The central question of this research, therefore, is: What specific ambiguities and challenges are posed by the amended Article 134 , and what possible solutions can be offered to resolve them? This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to explore the provisions surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment under the current law. It seeks to analyze the key challenges within this legal framework, which include: distinguishing between different crimes and similar ones, the method of aggregating similar crimes as opposed to different ones, the timing for recognizing multiple crimes for the application of multiplicity rules, the question of whether the rules of material multiplicity apply retroactively in the context of multiple criminal laws, the criteria for establishing material multiplicity concerning the necessity—or lack thereof—of a time gap between multiple offenses, and the simultaneous aggregation of multiplicity and repetition of crimes. The legal provisions addressing the issue of multiple crimes in our country have their roots in French criminal law, dating back to 1304 . Over the course of many revisions, the legislator eventually passed new regulations concerning multiple crimes in 2019 , followed by a subsequent amendment in 1999 as part of the Law on Reducing the Punishment of Imprisonment. However, due to the widespread application of these provisions in the criminal justice system, they have generated significant practical issues, leading to complications for judges and, consequently, violations of the rights of the accused. This article aims to thoroughly explain the provisions related to the material multiplicity of crimes under the Criminal Code and its amendments, addressing the most pressing challenges associated with this legal institution. By identifying these challenges and proposing solutions to overcome them, this research endeavors to provide clarity through the interpretation of the law and an examination of the legislator’s intentions. Additionally, it aims to ensure alignment with the overarching principles that govern criminal law, thereby proposing a unified approach to criteria and procedural matters in this domain. Offering solutions and resolving scientific and practical ambiguities is one of the most significant contributions of this research, which can greatly benefit the criminal justice system and help achieve the most just outcomes possible. One long-standing issue in the context of punitive measures has been the question of multiplicity of crimes. Multiplicity of crimes is a key aspect of the individualized punishment process and often serves as a reason for the escalation of penalties. General aggravating factors are attributes that are linked to any crime and, when identified by a judge, necessitate an increase in the punishment. These factors are not specific to any one crime but can apply broadly across different offenses. In many countries worldwide, individuals who commit multiple crimes are seen as having a more entrenched delinquent nature, and therefore, a heavier penalty is often imposed to facilitate their rehabilitation. The goal is to reintegrate the offender into society, purified from criminal tendencies and free from the risks of recidivism. In terms of classification, multiplicity of crimes can be divided into two categories: material multiplicity and credit multiplicity. Material multiplicity, also referred to as real or objective multiplicity, occurs when a perpetrator commits two or more independent criminal acts without having received a definitive conviction for any of those offenses. On the other hand, credit multiplicity refers to situations in which an individual commits a single act, but multiple criminal charges can be applied to that single act, and the individual has not received a final conviction for any of those charges. Given that this research is focused specifically on material multiplicity, a more detailed discussion of credit multiplicity and its associated rules will be avoided due to its limited relevance to the scope of this study. In conclusion, the challenges surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes as addressed in the amended Criminal Code are substantial, and the need for clearer legal interpretations and solutions is urgent. By examining the key issues and offering solutions, this research contributes valuable insights into how the judicial system can address these challenges while safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the equitable application of justice. Through careful analysis and proposed reforms, the study aims to facilitate the correct implementation of laws related to material multiplicity, ultimately improving the efficiency and fairness of the criminal justice system.
تبلیغات
