بررسی تطبیقی الزام به فرار مدافع از موقعیت دفاع مشروع در حقوق کامن‌لا و فقه امامیه

یکی از موقعیت‌هایی که در دفاع مشروع به‌وجود می‌آید، حالتی است که مهاجم حملۀ خود را آغاز کرده، اما هنوز ضرورت دفاع برای مدافع به‌وجود نیامده است و وی امکان عقب‌نشینی و فرار از دست مهاجم را دارد. حال پرسش اساسی آن است که آیا مدافع ملزم به فرار در برابر حملۀ مهاجم است یا آنکه وی می‌تواند همچنان بایستد تا سرانجام از حق دفاع خود بهره‌مند گردد؟ حقوق کامن‌لا در قرون اخیر مبتنی بر نظریۀ جامعوی «شر کمتر و منفعت بیشتر» است و در صورت امکان عقب‌نشینی، مدافع را ملزم به فرار می‌داند؛ زیرا فرار راهی برای تحقق حفظ جان مهاجم (منفعت بیشتر) و کاهش احتمال جرم (شر کمتر) است، چنان‌که عدم رعایت آن با وجود حصول کلیۀ شرایط دیگر دفاع، موجب عدم مشروعیت اصل دفاع می‌شود. در متون فقهی، مبحث وجوب فرار بعد از بیان اصل وجوب دفاع، تنها برای تاکید بر حفظ جان مدافع در زمان عدم توانایی وی در برابر حملۀ مهاجم عنوان شده است. بنابراین اگر شرایط دفاع حاصل شود، اصل وجوب دفاع حاکم است و عدم فرار وی اثر حقوقی ندارد.

A Comparative Study of Duty to Retreat from the Position of Self-defense in Common Law and Imamiyah Jurisprudence

Selfdefense is a defense that is often raised by defendants in a criminal trial who were involved in a fight with the victim that resulted in the victim’s serious injury or death. The law recognizes the right that someone has to protect his or her own person. but there is some situations which sometimes appears in the criminal defense of selfdefense, and which must be addressed if criminal defendants are to prove that their conduct was justified One of these situations in self defense is that the attacker has started his attack but yet Necessity condition has not existed and the defender has ability to retreat and escape. The key question is whether he has to retreat against the offensive attack or he can continue based on the right to defend himself? This article explores the doctrine of selfdefence within the context of the challenges about duty to retreat. This principle requires that someone who found themselves in a violent confrontation had to try to defuse the situation and retreat. In fact the general principle behind the duty to retreat laws is that the use of force lethal or otherwise is not justified until a person has made a reasonable effort to avoid confrontation, either by deescalation or an attempt to leave the area where the threat is occurring. common law in the recent centuries based on the lesser evil and more benefit as a society theory, would require the defender to retreat, since escape is a way to realize the survival of the attacker (more benefit) and reduce the probability of crime (less evil). Failure to do so, despite the achievement of all other conditions of defense, causes  rejecting the defense principle. English commonlaw doctrine strictly limited the cases to which Stand Your Ground applied and earliest American selfdefense doctrine imposed a general Duty of Retreat, but now also admitted exceptions such as &Castle Doctrine& it is named for the axiom that &a man’s home is his castle. In the imamiyah jurisprudential texts, the issue of duty to retreat is stated after the defense principal and is only intended to emphasize the protection of the defender during his inability to attack the attacker. Therefore, if the conditions of defense are achieved, the principle of the defense is dominant, and his failure to escape has not a legal effect. German criminal law, based on the individualist theory of the rights to defense, rejects duty to retreat. this theory states that a person &who is attacked& anywhere he is lawfully present has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm. But based on the principle of the responsibility of the attacker in the private defense in German criminal law, in the defense against the invasion and children the defender has to retreat or it is considered as a duress defence. Therefore, the defender in these cases is required to retreat. Because he, in the absence of a retreat with the possibility of doing so, he himself is guilty of creating his own duress condition and this is a case of defying his defense.