نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Article 1056 of the Civil Code, sanctioned in 1934, delineates a significant impediment to marriage, referred to as a "heinous act." This act results in an enduring prohibition against the marriage of the offender to their sister, daughter, or mother. Legal doctrine and judicial procedure commonly interpret this act as "Sodomy" (Lavat). The term "Sodomy" in the context of criminal law is linked with the concept of a heinous act as defined in Article 1056 of the Civil Code. Nevertheless, these interpretations often disregard the potential divergence between the civil interpretation of a heinous act and the criminal definition of Sodomy.
While the analysis of Lavat as a criminal offense falls beyond the scope of this article, which primarily operates within the realm of private law, particularly family law, it's essential to address the question of whether the civil concept of a heinous act aligns precisely with its criminal counterpart. This inquiry prompts a review of the concept and definition of Lavat in criminal law. The trajectory of legislation concerning Lavat as a criminal offense reveals shifts in the legislator's criminal stance on this matter. This alteration in criminal perspective warrants scrutiny from the angles of investigative elements and resultant penalties. However, the primary objective of this article revolves around investigating a pivotal question:
How does the alteration of Lavat's new criminal definition influence the prevention of heinous acts, as outlined in Article 1056 of the Civil Code?
To conduct a comprehensive analysis of this subject, it's imperative to address key questions central to the discourse. Is it accurate to equate Lavat with a heinous act without dispute? What overlaps exist between instances of Lavat and heinous acts? Could the principle of legal marriage prohibition extend to cases of heinous acts that do not align with criminal offenses? In essence, what links the issue of Lavat in the 2013 Islamic Penal Code to the concept of a heinous act in Article 1056 of the civil code?
The significance of this inquiry lies in determining whether the criminal definition of Sodomy corresponds precisely with the civil understanding of a heinous act. If equivalence exists between the two, a person convicted of Sodomy would be forever barred from marrying the daughter, sister, or mother of the violated individual. However, if disparity exists between the two concepts, an individual may face marriage restrictions despite not being convicted of a Sodomy crime.
This research employs a legal methodology while delving into Islamic jurisprudence, primarily focusing on domestic law. It examines alterations in the definition and instances of the Lavat crime in criminal legislation prior to and following the Islamic revolution. While abstaining from an in-depth exploration of the criminal nature of Lavat, the study emphasizes the factor of penetration and its significance, especially within the 2013 criminal code. This investigation endeavors to establish the correlation between the concept of "Lavat" and the concept of a "heinous act," as outlined in Article 1056 of the Civil Code. The research aims to elucidate the authentic interpretation of a heinous act within family law as a barrier to marriage, contrasting it with the criminal concept of the Lavat crime.
As per the 2013 Islamic Punishment Law, and in contrast to previous periods, "Lavat" is only recognized when penetration reaches the stipulated threshold (complete penetration). Anything less is termed "tafikhiz," signifying the act of rubbing genitals on the body of the violated person. However, for the purpose of invoking the heinous act described in Article 1056 of the Civil Code, complete inclusion, even if not meeting the specified threshold, suffices to enact the prohibition on marriage. Consequently, criminal Lavat serves as an example of a heinous act, but all instances of heinous acts may not necessarily qualify as Lavat. Therefore, mere acquittal from a Lavat charge does not automatically result in the prohibition of marriage due to a heinous act. To underscore the distinction between Lavat and heinous acts, a proposed revision to Article 1056 of the Civil Code has been offered. The revised article would read: "If a male engages in a heinous act with another male, involving any extent of penetration, he is precluded from marrying his mother, sister, or daughter."
کلیدواژهها [English]
)