knowledge of the judge

Reflecting on Iranian jurisprudential and legal sources and texts in the area of evidence to prove the case, indicates gender differences in it, which is the place of reflection and analysis in this article. From the point of view of jurisprudence and law, the general rule is based on the fact that women's gender has no effect on their criminal responsibility, but in the matter of proving a crime through evidence of testimony, confession and the judge's knowledge, gender is influential and there are differences between men and women. The legislator has determined the type of evidence at the time of ratification, depending on the gender of a man or a woman in a specific or common crime. In this research, the effect of women's gender on proofs is investigated, and each of the proofs is discussed separately. This research, which was carried out using descriptive and analytical method and using library sources, seeks to find a suitable answer to the question of what effect does gender have on the type or quality of Evidence substantiation? What is obtained from the evidence and documentation indicates that women's gender has an effect on testimony, but it has no effect on the judge's knowledge and confession.

This research, which was carried out using a "case study" method, concerns the issuance and execution of the death sentence for a person who has a record of six previous convictions for drinking alcohol. The evidence of this ruling is Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2012, which stipulates: "If someone commits the same type of crime that causes hadd (i.e. punishment is precisely determined) three times, and each time the punishment for that crime is inflicted upon him, his hadd is death in the fourth instance. The evidence to prove this charge is "the knowledge of the judge" and it has passed the different stages of the prosecutor's office, the criminal court 1 and the Supreme Court. In the analytical review of this case it has been determined that some of the rules governing preliminary investigation of hadd punishment have been overlooked by the bailiffs and the judicial authorities. Especially, the existence of eight misgivings identified in these studies indicate that the case in question is subject to the ruling of " Rule of Dar’(elimination)" which is enshrined in articles 120 and 121 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013. In conclusion, three suggestions have been presented to improve the activity of bailiffs and judges, as well as amendment of Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013 regarding the death penalty for repeating crimes in which the punishment is hadd.

The knowledge of the judge is one of the proofs of the claim in Imamiyyah jurisprudence and criminal law of Iran. The knowledge may be obtained from the contents of the case or from the judge's sensory observations. Despite the fundamental differences of Islamic penal policy in response to prescribed and punitive crimes, specifically crimes against chastity, using the knowledge of the judge will lead to a policy of tolerance or strict criminal punishment for these crimes. This article examines the views of the jurists in this respect and concludes that the general policy in crimes against chastity is forgiveness, impunity and tolerance, but in the case of rape due to the violation of public decency and deprivation of security of individuals and society, the policy of intolerance and maximum acceptance of the knowledge of the judge is dominated as one of the most important reasons to prove the claim. Also, Iran's criminal law has taken the same procedure in response to this crime.

Islam’s legal system has been established independent from other three great legal systems in the world. And this independence can be spoken of in the field of positive differential policies as an important part ofthis legal system and based on several rational arguments. Thus¡ in the present article¡ the author tries to depict the principle of equality in the system of proofs as the primary rule; and then¡ he will use the principle of individualizing as the secondary and particular- in other words¡ exceptional- principle to depict a model of judging proofs in the Islamic Law as well as Iranian Law. As a matter of fact¡ so far¡ these principles have been used together with the principle of equality concerning punishments. In the present study¡ however¡ they have been spoken of in the field of the system of proofs in the Islamic penal law and this shows that development of proofs is not restricted to the severity of crime; and the type of crime¡ victim¡ and sometimes even the conditions of the victim should be taken into account in the differential system of proofs in Islam. Findings of this study and its analyses show that these differential policies¡ as compared to other legal systems such as that of France¡ enjoy a more extensive field; and¡ in most non-Islamic legal systems¡ either there is no such differentiation in positive policies at all or only severity of crime- has been taken as the axis.