The Relation of Crime and Sin in Iran’s Legal System
Subject Areas : All jurisprudential issues
Seyd Mohamadreza
Ayati
1
(دانشیار گروه فقه و حقوق اسلامی، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران)
Hamze
Esfandiyari
2
(دانش آموخته دکتری فقه و حقوق اسلامی، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران)
Keywords: crime, sin, authoritative jurisprudential , valid decress, criminalization, discretionary punishment,
Abstract :
“Crime” and “sin” are among the words used in everyday language assynonyms and interchangeable words. However, in the field of law,particularly Iran’s law, they are looked into differently. As far as history isconcerned, and since Iranian law is under the influence of religious thought,there is a certain distinction between the two terms. Sin is a behaviourcontrary to divine or religious commands and prohibitions. However, crime isa legal term applied to modes of behaviour the prohibition of which is statedin law, no matter whether they are forbidden in divine law and religion or not.Following this attitude, if a certain mode of behaviour is forbidden in terms ofjurisprudence and divine law, but not prohibited in law, it is considered a sin.However, it would not be liable to prosecution in terms of law.Following the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, thisapproach was considered deviation from religion. Thus the article 167 of theI.R.I constitution has removed the monopoly of criminalization from the law.So in default of law, judge is bound to refer to authoritative jurisprudentialsources or valid decrees (Fatwas). This attitude suggests the identity of sinand crime in Iran’s contemporary legal system.Hence, not only the prohibited acts stated in statutes are consideredcrimes, but those stated in jurisprudential sources are also liable toprosecution.Although this view involves a kind of precaution and suggests concernfor application of religious precepts and regulations, it is contrary to theintents of Divine Law as far as foundations are concerned. It also facesnumorous problems in terms of practice. So it seems impossible to findsolutions to these problems, And this attitude is not consistent with themodern process of legislation.
