نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، گروه حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، پردیس بین‌الملل، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
3 استادیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
Complicity is one of the forms of cooperation in committing a crime, and examining its nature can clarify its distinction from other concepts such as aiding and abetting. Substantial research has been conducted on complicity. A scrutiny of these studies reveals that some writers have neglected the nature of complicity in Iranian law. For example, some scholars have proposed a different definition for complicity in taziri crimes to address group criminal activities and organized crimes, while others consider unity of intent essential for establishing complicity. Given the negative consequences of overlooking the nature of complicity, this article aims to explain its nature within Iran's legal system, resolve some ambiguities surrounding complicity, and clarify the boundary between complicity and aiding and abetting. Accordingly, the main question of the article is: What is the nature of complicity in Iranian law?
Methods
This article employs an analytical-critical method and reli es on library resources. The first part critiques creditable theories on complicity, the second part presents the author's perspective—namely, the real nature of complicity—and the third part examines the elements of complicity under the real approach.
Results
In creditable theories, the criterion for establishing complicity depends on the will of the legislator, and factors such as intention, conspiracy, and psychological characteristics influence its realization. However, in the real approach, the nature of complicity is not subject to the will of custom, the legislator, jurists, or even Sharia. Complicity is a material fact that arises when multiple factors intervene in the occurrence of an act in such a way that the act is attributable to all intervening factors. This definition applies to all crimes, and the nature of complicity does not depend on the type of offense committed.
Consequently, to achieve objectives such as combating organized crime, it is not permissible to adopt a different definition of complicity in taziri crimes. The legislator's discretion in this area does not imply that it is unregulated, nor does it justify actions contrary to jurisprudential and legal standards or the real nature of complicity.
In this approach, complicity pertains to the actus reus of the crime, and unlike aiding and abetting, it does not involve the constituent elements of the crime itself. Intention, conspiracy, and other psychological characteristics do not affect the realization of complicity. Rather, these characteristics may influence the nature of the perpetrators' liability. Contrary to creditable views that exclude the possibility of complicity in unintentional crimes, the real approach acknowledges complicity even in such cases.
Under the real approach, complicity requires four main elements, and the absence of any one precludes its realization:
Multiplicity of factors
Causal association of the factors
Occurrence of a single event
Attribution of the crime to all factors
Conclusions
Complicity, contrary to what creditable theories (such as the subjective approach and crime control theory) propose, is a real and external reality. Recognizing its material nature is essential for defining complicity and articulating its elements. Legal provisions related to complicity—such as Articles 125 and 535 of the Islamic Penal Code—must be analyzed and interpreted in light of this nature.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)