Document Type : Original Article
Author
Ayatollah Boroujerdi University
Abstract
Crime for profit comes in many forms; Sometimes the benefit of the member is lost forever and sometimes it returns after a while. If the benefit is lost forever, the sentence is not complicated. However, the decision on the sentence of diyat at the beginning of the crime, due to the lack of time, is the subject of controversy under the title of "establishment of diyat". Also, the decision on the ruling on diyat, assuming that the lost interest is returned to the victim after a while, is the subject of controversy, entitled "refund of diyat". The decline of benefits, over time, as well as the return of benefits, over time has different assumptions that challenge the decision to establish and return the ransom; Such as the physician's expert opinion on the return and non-return of the benefit at the very beginning of the crime, or such as how long the benefit has been lost after the crime can have an effective return on the legal decision. Adherence to the Islamic Penal Code indicates the depth of the legal vacuum of diyat in the assumption of return of benefits. The first research step in the present article is to set up a structure with coherent jurisprudential and medical assumptions to evaluate the return ransom and non-return benefits. The next step of the research, which is related to the mentioned structure, is limited to evaluating the opinions of jurisprudence and law experts regarding the establishment and return of diyat. Using descriptive-analytical method, it is proved that the ruling on establishing blood money is directly related to the doctor's expert opinion that the benefit is not returned. Also, the sentence for refunding the blood money will be limited to returning the benefit before the expiration of the term.
Keywords
)