ارزیابی تعدد مادی از منظر قانون کاهش مجازات حبس تعزیری، چالش‌‌ ها و راهکارها

با اجرایی شدن قانون کاهش مجازات حبس تعزیری مصوب 1399 مقنن تغییرات بسیاری را در قواعد تعدد مادی جرایم موجب تعزیر اعمال کرده است، به نحوی که این تغییر ملاک در تعیین مجازات و نیز تشدید و تخفیف مجازات و چرایی تفکیک میان جرایم مختلف از مشابه، قضات و حقوقدانان را با چالش‌های علمی و عملی مختلفی مواجه کرده است؛ این ابهامات، استنباط‌های متفاوتی را از ماده‌‌ی 134 ق.م.ا اصلاحی در پی داشته که می‌تواند موجب تضییع حقوق متهمان گردد. در واقع سوال اصلی این پژوهش این است: ماده‌‌ی ١٣4 اصلاحی چه ابهامات و چالش‌‌هایی را به همراه دارد و  چه راهکارهایی را جهت برون رفت از آن‌ها می‌توان ارائه داد؟ در این پژوهش به شیوه‌‌ی توصیفی-تحلیلی سعی شده ضمن تبیین مقررات تعدد مادی جرایم موجب تعزیر در قانون حاضر، به بررسی مهمترین چالش‌های موجود در این نهاد از جمله تشخیص جرایم مختلف از مشابه، نحوه‌‌ی شمارش چند جرم مشابه از مختلف، زمان تشخیص جرایم متعدد جهت اعمال مقررات تعدد جرم، بررسی عطف به ماسبق شدن یا نشدن قواعد تعدد مادی جرم در قلمروی حاکمیت قوانین جزایی متعدد، ملاک تحقق تعدد جرم از حیث ضرورت یا عدم ضرورت فاصله‌‌ی ‌زمانی در رفتارهای ارتکابی متعدد، جمع هم زمان تعدد و تکرار جرم، پرداخته شود.

assessing phenomenal multiplicity in light of the law on reducing imprisonment punishments: challenges and solution

the recent implementation of the law aimed at reducing imprisonment penalties, as approved by the legislator, has brought about numerous changes to the principles governing the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment, especially when compared to the regulations in place in 1392. these modifications in the criteria for determining punishment, along with the intensification and reduction of penalties and the rationale behind differentiating between various crimes and their similar counterparts, have presented both judges and legal scholars with a wide range of theoretical and practical challenges. these ambiguities have resulted in divergent interpretations of article 134 of the amended criminal code, which has, in turn, led to potential harm to the rights of the accused. the central question of this research, therefore, is: what specific ambiguities and challenges are posed by the amended article 134, and what possible solutions can be offered to resolve them?this research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to explore the provisions surrounding the material multiplicity of crimes resulting in punishment under the current law. it seeks to analyze the key challenges within this legal framework, which include: distinguishing between different crimes and similar ones, the method of aggregating similar crimes as opposed to different ones, the timing for recognizing multiple crimes for the application of multiplicity rules, the question of whether the rules of material multiplicity apply retroactively in the context of multiple criminal laws, the criteria for establishing material multiplicity concerning the necessity—or lack thereof—of a time gap between multiple offenses, and the simultaneous aggregation of multiplicity and repetition of crimes.the legal provisions addressing the issue of multiple crimes in our country have their roots in french criminal law, dating back to 1304. over the course of many revisions, the legislator eventually passed new regulations concerning multiple crimes in 2019, followed by a subsequent amendment in 1999 as part of the law on reducing the punishment of imprisonment. however, due to the widespread application of these provisions in the criminal justice system, they have generated significant practical issues, leading to complications for judges and, consequently, violations of the rights of the accused. this article aims to thoroughly explain the provisions related to the material multiplicity of crimes under the criminal code and its amendments, addressing the most pressing challenges associated with this legal institution.by identifying these challenges and proposing solutions to overcome them, this research endeavors to provide clarity through the interpretation of the law and an examination of the legislator’s intentions. additionally, it aims to ensure alignment with the overarching principles that govern criminal law, thereby proposing a unified approach to criteria and procedural matters in this domain. offering solutions and resolving scientific and practical ambiguities is one of the most significant contributions of this research, which can greatly benefit the criminal justice system and help achieve the most just outcomes possible.one long-standing issue in the context of punitive measures has been the question of multiplicity of crimes. multiplicity of crimes is a key aspect of the individualized punishment process and often serves as a reason for the escalation of penalties.