Arian Petoft; Mahmoud Abbasi; Ali Reza Zali
Abstract
In Article 91 of the Islamic penal code, it has been defined three circumstances as factors for the abolition (nonsuit) of ḥadd (Arabic: حد) or Qiṣāṣ (Arabic: قصاص; Retribution) ...
Read More
In Article 91 of the Islamic penal code, it has been defined three circumstances as factors for the abolition (nonsuit) of ḥadd (Arabic: حد) or Qiṣāṣ (Arabic: قصاص; Retribution) punishment of the mature children: a. lack of perceiving the crime, b. absence of perceiving the prohibition, c. ambiguity in the growth and perfection of 'aql (rational proof). Pursuant to Articles 144 and 155 of this law it is understood that the concepts “lack of understanding of the nature of crime” and “lack of understanding of unlawfulness of crime” have reality a close relationship with the concepts “factual doubt and legal doubt” in the penal code. But while the semantic affinity of these concepts, the “perception” component is considered a fundamental distinguishable aspect among them that it varies from “science” in the nature of definition of the legal doubt and factual doubt. In reality, the legislature with stating the category “perception” in this Article has attempted to add a new concept to the bases of the juvenile and minor criminal law but of course for ambiguity and theoretical imperfection the issue is arguable. “Perception” is an abstract and complicated concept in the cognitive neuroscience that it is of the cognitive categories of brain and associates to the mind activity. The present paper is going to determine this concept in the interpretation of the new neurolaw (neuroscience) and specify parameters for its attaining. Besides filling to a very great extent the scientific vacuums in this area the research findings present to the judge an appropriate opinion and criteria in relation to the child’s perception in conflict with the law.
