اعتبارسنجی تأثیر اختلال روانی «PTSD» بر تعیین مسئولیت کیفری در نظام عدالت قضایی ایران و آمریکا (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
اختلال روانی استرس پس از سانحه (PTSD) یک اختلال روانی است که در اثر تماس با موقعیت های تهدیدکننده ی حیات به وجود می آید. این نوشتار که به روش توصیفی و تحلیلی نگارش شده است، درصدد پاسخ به این پرسش است که آیا در کشور ایران و آمریکا این اختلال می تواند به عنوان یک دفاع کیفری مطرح شود یا خیر. یافته ها نشان دادند در نظام عدالت قضایی آمریکا، متهمان ممکن است ادعا کنند که این اختلال بر کنترل رفتارشان تأثیر گذاشته است. این ادعا از طریق گواهی کارشناسان مربوط ارزیابی می شود و این دسته از بیماران روانی در صورت اثبات، ممکن است از مجازات معاف شوند و یا در مجازات ایشان تخفیف حاصل گردد. اما در نظام قضایی ایران، مرتکب، با توجه به ماده ی 149ق.م.ا درصورتی که فاقد اراده یا فاقد قوه ی تمییز باشد مجنون محسوب می شود و مسئولیت کیفری ندارد و در صورتی که فاقد این شروط باشد مسئولیت کیفری تام داشته و برخلاف نظام قضایی آمریکا، مسئولیت کیفری نقصان یافته، صراحتاً مورد پذیرش قرار نگرفته است؛ اگرچه در جرایم تعزیری، مقررات عام تخفیف و نهادهای ارفاقی دیگری از جمله مجازات جایگزین حبس، تعویق صدور حکم، تعلیق اجرای مجازات به چشم می خورد؛ اما از این حیث که قضات ملزم به اجرای مفاد این معاذیر نیستند با انتقاد مواجه است.Assessing the Role of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Criminal Responsibility: A Comparative Study of Iranian and U.S. Judicial Systems
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and debilitating mental health condition triggered by exposure to highly traumatic or life-threatening events such as war, sexual assault, physical abuse, or natural disasters. It is characterized by symptoms including intrusive memories or flashbacks, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, emotional numbing, heightened arousal, irritability, and significant disturbances in sleep. Beyond these symptoms, PTSD often leads to maladaptive behaviors such as substance abuse, aggression, and in some cases, suicidal tendencies. Given its pervasive impact, PTSD is recognized not only as a psychological disorder but also as a significant factor influencing social behavior and criminal conduct. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the role of PTSD as a criminal defense within the judicial frameworks of Iran and the United States. This is particularly important given the high prevalence of PTSD among trauma-affected populations, such as Iranian veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, where prevalence rates range between 15% and 39%. Understanding how PTSD influences criminal behavior and how judicial systems respond to this condition is crucial for ensuring justice and appropriate legal treatment for affected individuals. Nature and Characteristics of PTSD PTSD develops after direct exposure to or witnessing traumatic events. It is especially prevalent among war veterans—such as those who served in Vietnam, Iraq, or the Iran-Iraq War—survivors of interpersonal violence, and victims of natural disasters. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the disorder’s core symptoms include re-experiencing trauma through vivid flashbacks or nightmares, deliberate avoidance of trauma reminders, emotional detachment or numbing, and persistent hyperarousal manifesting as irritability, anger outbursts, or sleep difficulties. These symptoms can significantly disrupt daily functioning, often leading to impulsive or violent behaviors, which are further aggravated by concurrent substance abuse. Empirical research shows that PTSD profoundly affects social relationships, family dynamics, and occupational performance, contributing to increased rates of divorce, parenting challenges, and co-occurring depression. The chronic and progressive nature of PTSD means that without appropriate treatment, symptoms often worsen, escalating risks of self-harm, aggression, and other adverse outcomes, underscoring the importance of its consideration in legal contexts. PTSD and Criminal Behavior The relationship between PTSD and criminal behavior is complex and operates through multiple pathways. First, individual symptoms such as emotional instability, impulsivity, and irritability can directly trigger aggressive or violent acts. For example, individuals suffering from PTSD may respond impulsively to perceived threats or stressors, occasionally resulting in criminal conduct. Additionally, attempts to self-medicate traumatic memories through substance abuse can exacerbate these tendencies. Second, environmental factors linked to traumatic backgrounds—such as combat exposure, histories of sexual abuse, or residence in high-crime communities—can further destabilize behavior and increase the risk of criminal activity. Studies indicate that nearly 46% of veterans with PTSD engaged in violent acts within a year, with 37% repeating such behaviors. Women exposed to violence, especially those with PTSD, also display higher rates of criminal involvement, highlighting the intersection of trauma and criminality. PTSD in the U.S. Judicial System The U.S. judicial system acknowledges PTSD as a factor relevant to criminal responsibility in various ways. One significant application is through the insanity defense, specifically under the M’Naghten Rule, which allows for acquittal if the defendant was unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to mental illness. Notable cases such as State v. Cocuzza , involving a Vietnam veteran, and Commonwealth v. Tracy have seen successful use of PTSD as a basis for insanity acquittals. Conversely, cases like United States v. Duggan and United States v. Whitehead demonstrate that insufficient clinical evidence can lead to rejection of such defenses. The automatism defense, which argues that the defendant acted unconsciously due to PTSD-related dissociation or other symptoms, has also been accepted in appellate courts, as seen in People v. Lisnow and State v. Fields . Additionally, PTSD-related syndromes such as battered woman syndrome have been successfully invoked in self-defense claims, especially where the defendant faced imminent danger, as in State v. Kelly and Rogers v. State . Even when PTSD does not absolve criminal responsibility, it often serves as a mitigating factor reducing sentencing severity. For instance, in In re Nunez , a life sentence was overturned due to failure to consider PTSD, while in United States v. Cope , full criminal responsibility was maintained despite the presence of PTSD, illustrating variable judicial discretion. PTSD in the Iranian Judicial System Iran’s judicial system currently exhibits a more limited and rigid approach to PTSD in criminal law. The Islamic Penal Code (2013), particularly Article 149, allows exemption from criminal responsibility solely in cases where the defendant completely lacks willpower or discernment due to mental illness, effectively limiting considerations to cases of legal insanity. This binary distinction ignores the complexities of partial impairments such as PTSD, thus excluding many affected individuals from appropriate legal recognition. Article 153 provides exemptions for involuntary acts performed during sleep or unconscious states, which could apply to some PTSD-related automatism, but this remains largely unexplored. While self-defense is acknowledged under Article 156, the strict necessity and proportionality criteria restrict its application, especially regarding psychological conditions like battered woman syndrome, which is more flexibly treated in common law jurisdictions. Furthermore, Iran lacks formal recognition of diminished responsibility for sub-insanity disorders like PTSD. Although Articles 37 and 38 allow judges discretionary power to reduce sentences, these provisions are vague and rarely emphasize mental disorders that do not meet full insanity criteria. Alternative legal mechanisms, such as alternative punishments (Article 64), deferred sentencing (Article 40), suspension of prosecution (Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and exemption from punishment (Article 39), could theoretically support PTSD defendants, but their discretionary use and absence of clear guidelines limit their practical effectiveness. Conclusion Comparing the two systems, the U.S. judiciary demonstrates greater flexibility and clinical integration in addressing PTSD as a criminal defense through insanity, automatism, self-defense, and mitigating sentencing factors. Conversely, the Iranian system’s strict application of insanity standards and lack of diminished responsibility frameworks result in limited acknowledgment of PTSD’s impact on criminal behavior, with no documented cases explicitly involving PTSD defenses. To promote justice and therapeutic outcomes for PTSD-affected offenders in Iran, judicial reforms are recommended. These include formal recognition of diminished criminal responsibility for sub-insanity disorders, mandatory sentencing reductions for specific mental health conditions, expansion of alternative sentencing options, and revision of existing penal provisions to emphasize defendants’ psychological states. Such changes would align Iranian criminal law more closely with contemporary understandings of PTSD’s psychological complexities and foster a more equitable, humane judicial response.
تبلیغات
