ارتباط معیار اثبات با میزان ارعاب در حقوق کیفری و بازتاب آن در نظام تقنینی و قضایی ایران

زمینه و هدف: اصل برائت اقتضاء دارد که با شک در گناهکاری افراد، فرض بر بی‌گناهی آنان نهاده شود و تنها زمانی حکم به محکومیت داده شود که فراتر از هر شک و شبهه‌ای، وجدان دادرس قانع به ارتکاب جرم توسط متهم شده باشد. این رویکرد که با کارکرد سزا‌دهی در مجازات همخوانی دارد، اثبات جرم را سخت‌تر کرده و ناخواسته سبب می‌شود تا راه‌های گریز از محکومیت و مجازات باز باشد و دستیابی به اهداف ارعاب و پیشگیری ناممکن گردد.روش: در تحقیق حاضر که با روش توصیفی و به شیوه کتابخانه‌ای انجام شده است، نشان داده شده است که یک ارتباط منطقی بین معیار اثبات با اهداف کیفر وجود دارد.یافته‌ها و نتایج: هر چه اثبات جرم بر اساس این معیار سخت‌گیرانه‌تر باشد، دستیابی به ارعاب کمتر است و هر چه امکان محکومیت‌های کیفری ساده‌تر باشد، میزان سزا‌دهی کمتر خواهد بود. اصل برائت یا معیار محکومیت فراتر از شک معقول، نمودی شعاری پیداکرده و سیاست‌های تقنینی و قضایی کشورها به‌سوی ساده‌سازی اثبات جرم پیش رفته‌اند. افزایش جرم انگاری در حوزه جرائم مادی صرف و مفروض دانستن عناصر جرم، معیار قرار دادن نتیجه حاصل به‌جای رکن مادی، جرم انگاری جرائم غیرعمدی و پیش‌بینی جرائم سازمان‌یافته و فرض مجرمیت عواید حاصل از آن و بسیاری دیگر، نمونه‌هایی از تغییر نگرش موازین سنتی اثبات جرم است.

The relationship between the criterion of proof and the level of intimidation in criminal law and its reflection in the legislative and judicial system of Iran

Background and Aim: The principle of innocence requires that individuals be presumed innocent on suspicion of guilt and sentenced only if, beyond any doubt, the conscience of the judge is satisfied that the accused has committed a crime. This approach, which is consistent with the punitive function of punishment, makes it more difficult to prove guilt and inadvertently opens the door to escape from conviction and punishment, making it impossible to achieve the goals of intimidation and prevention.Method: In the present study, which has been done by descriptive method and in a library method, it has been shown that there is a logical relationship between the criterion of proof and the purposes of punishment.Findings and Results: The stricter the evidence for a crime based on this criterion, the less intimidation is achieved, and the simpler the possibility of criminal convictions, the lower the penalty. The principle of innocence or the criterion of conviction, beyond reasonable doubt, has become a slogan, and the legislative and judicial policies of countries have moved towards simplifying the proof of guilt. Increasing criminality in the field of material crimes, merely assuming the elements of the crime, standardizing the result instead of the material element, criminalizing unintentional crimes and predicting organized crime, and assuming the guilt of the proceeds, anBackground and Aim: The principle of innocence requires that individuals be presumed innocent on suspicion of guilt and sentenced only if, beyond any doubt, the conscience of the judge is satisfied that the accused has committed a crime. This approach, which is consistent with the punitive function of punishment, makes it more difficult to prove guilt and inadvertently opens the door to escape from conviction and punishment, making it impossible to achieve the goals of intimidation and prevention.Method: In the present study, which has been done by descriptive method and in a library method, it has been shown that there is a logical relationship between the criterion of proof and the purposes of punishment.Findings and Results: The stricter the evidence for a crime based on this criterion, the less intimidation is achieved, and the simpler the possibility of criminal convictions, the lower the penalty. The principle of innocence or the criterion of conviction, beyond reasonable doubt, has become a slogan, and the legislative and judicial policies of countries have moved towards simplifying the proof of guilt. Increasing criminality in the field of material crimes, merely assuming the elements of the crime, standardizing the result instead of the material element, criminalizing unintentional crimes and predicting organized crime, and assuming the guilt of the proceeds, and many others, are examples of changing traditional attitudesd many others, are examples of changing traditional attitudes