نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Joint tortship, in its general sense, is the intervention of more than one person in committing a tort. In this sense, jointness accompanies and participates in the act. In a special sense, jointness is limited to the interference of more than two persons in the commission of the operation and the material element of the tort. In the U.S. legal system, in addition to cases where two or more people actually commit the actus reus of a tort, there are instances where, through the use of titles such as “attribution,” the commission of actus reus is virtually attributed to more than one person. In this legal system, such an approach is based on goals such as redress and deterrence. In Iranian law, according to the well-known opinion, jointness in tort is subject to the commission of actus reus by two or more persons, and apparently, in some cases—similar to American law—by implicitly using the concept of “attribution,” the realization of jointness in tort is recognized, which does not seem correct. Because, contrary to U.S. law and some views in popular jurisprudence, when the legislator, in the latter part of Article 535 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013, considers intent to have an impact on the material reality of jointness, he does not adhere to all of its effects and assumptions. In the case of criminal responsibility, it imposes a lighter punishment on the accomplice, and in the case of civil liability, it assumes the distribution of damages among multiple causes. In the present study, it has been demonstrated through a descriptive-analytical method that, unlike U.S. law—which, due to its instrumentalist nature, has a broad scope for jointness in wrongs—in Iranian law, because of its ethical foundation, jointness in wrongs has a narrow scope. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend or delete the last part of Article 535 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
