Neglect of the Golden Rule of Dar’

Religion and Thought Service of Iran Book News Agency (IBNA) – Hasti Ahmadi; Sometimes a ruling is issued that not only puts an end to a human life but also leaves a big question mark in the mind of society. This book narrates one such ruling; an execution based on repetition, issued for an addict who had tasted the punishment for drinking alcohol five times.

The book “The Last Intoxication” by Mohammadjavad Darvishzadeh, an alumnus of Allameh Tabataba’i University, has been published with the scientific support of the Iran Law and Legal Research Institute and by the efforts of Dad and Danesh Publications. This work is an analytical and case-study research on one of the most controversial criminal cases in contemporary Iran; the case of the execution of a death sentence for repeated alcohol consumption.

This work narrates a verdict issued on April 22, 2018, in one of the branches of Criminal Court One of Razavi Khorasan, and also confirmed by the Supreme Court. A verdict that ended one person’s life, but there are ambiguities about this verdict. Such as why the judge did not pay attention to the individual’s personality, his social and psychological conditions, or why alcohol consumption had become his habit. How did the judge refer to Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code but overlook Articles 120 and 121 of the same law and disregard jurisprudential principles?

Darvishzadeh attributes the ambiguity in this verdict to the existence of the Golden Rule of Dar’ in Islamic jurisprudence. This rule states that if there is the slightest ambiguity about the crime or the conditions of the accused, the execution of the hadd (prescribed punishment) must be halted. This book addresses the question of whether this vital principle was observed in the case under discussion.

In this book, the author has tried to analyze all judicial stages of the case with an analytical approach, from the report of the judicial officers to the Supreme Court. The author’s goal in writing this book, according to himself, is to show how a lack of precision and negligence in the implementation of laws can irreversibly change human destinies.

This work is designed in four chapters and four steps; each building upon the previous step and paving the way for the next stage. In the first chapter, theoretical backgrounds, key concepts, and methodological foundations of the research are discussed. In this chapter, central terms are explained, and the position of the issue in its intellectual and legal context is clarified so that the reader knows what kind of analysis the author used to approach the case.

The second chapter begins the narration of what happened. A step-by-step description of the case, how the verdict was issued, the judicial records of the accused, and the personal and legal specifications of the convict are detailed in this section. In this chapter of the book, Darvishzadeh has also categorized and presented similar examples that existed in the country’s judicial practice. According to the author, the analysis of any phenomenon, before being conceptual, must begin with the identification of its specific instances.

The third chapter, continuing from the second, identifies and analyzes the laws governing the case. Here, the author describes the laws and regulations governing the case and similar examples, describes the background of legal articles and legal articles related to the anti-drug law; Darvishzadeh also utilized the comparison of similar rulings with these laws to discover patterns and interpretive probabilities.

The analytical focus of this research is the fourth chapter of the book, where the case in question is systematically analyzed from jurisprudential and legal perspectives. The author first examined the foundations of issuing the verdict with a focus on the Dar’ rule and then separated and interpreted eight major ambiguities identified in the process of issuing the verdict.

Some of the ambiguities raised in this case include ambiguity due to the number of repetitions, ambiguity due to the existence of a psychological disorder in the perpetrator, ambiguity due to the lack of specific intent, ambiguity due to the non-formation of a personality file, and similar cases. According to the Dar’ rule, the execution of hadd punishments is negated in the presence of any ambiguity.

According to the author, disregard for these matters, in addition to increasing the probability of issuing a verdict inconsistent with jurisprudential standards, creates a worrying disconnect between the legal text and the jurisprudential spirit. A disconnect that the Dar’ rule was precisely established to prevent.

In the continuation of this chapter, other jurisprudential documents related to execution in the case of repeated hadd crimes are critically and meticulously examined, and the capacities existing in jurisprudence for a more precise approach to such rulings are discussed.

At the end of this chapter, the author concludes and offers practical and theoretical suggestions. According to the author, no law, even if derived from Sharia, is independent of reform and adaptation to the conditions of the time; especially when human life is at stake.

He writes that if a day comes when officers enter the field with precision and deep understanding, judges rule with meticulousness in the balance of jurisprudence and ethics, and legislators courageously review, then it can be said that gallows ropes have given way to circles of reform, education, treatment, and salvation. And this is the beginning of a path whose destination will be “preservation of human dignity,” “enhancement of legal effectiveness,” and “realization of justice.”

Mohammad Javad Darvishzadeh dedicates this book to all those who were caught in the whirlwind of judicial error, bore the pain of helplessness, and whose voices of oppression were lost in the silence of history.