مرجع احراز موضوع قانون با تاکید بر شرکت در قتل

تا زمانی که موضوع هر ماده محقق نگردد، حکم قانونی بر آن مترتب نخواهد شد. در مواردی که وجود و عدم موضوع مشکوک است، چه نهادی باید وجود آن را احراز نماید به‌گونه‌ای که داوری وی، حجیت داشته و لازم الاتباع باشد؟ این مقاله با تاکید بر موضوع «استناد قتل به عمل همه شرکا» به پاسخ سوال فوق می‌پردازد و بر این نکته تاکید می‌کند که مرجع احراز موضوع، شخص قاضی است، هم آنکه وظیفه‌اش صدور حکم است و نظر هیچ نهادی برای قاضی الزام‌آور نیست. البته قاضی باید از مشورت سایر نهادها بهره ببرد؛ در خصوص شرکت در قتل که حاوی دو جزء «مداخله در عملیات اجرایی» و «استناد قتل به همه شرکا» است، در جزء اوّل از نظر کارشناس و در جزء دوم از نظر عرف به‌عنوان آراء مشورتی باید مطلع باشد.

The Authority to Obtain the Subject of Law with an Emphasis Put on Participation in Murder

Abstract The relation between subject and verdict is the same as the relation between cause and effect. In other words, as long as there is no subject realized, no verdict will follow it and, when a subject comes to being, evidently there will come a verdict. The very important question, here, is: “when there is some doubt concerning presence or absence of a subject, which authority should obtain its presence and is his judgment in this regard authoritative and binding?” Emphasizing “Referring murder to the acts done by all those who have participated in murder”, the present article puts emphasis on the point that the authority to obtain the subject is the judge who is responsible to issue a verdict and solve the case. As a result, opinion of no institution is more authoritative and binding than that of the judge. The judge, of course, has to counsel with other institutions. Murder consists of two parts (engagement in executive operations of murder” and “referring the murder to all participants”) in the first part he has to make uses of the opinion of the expert and in the second part, he is better to refer to customary law and he has to do so.