جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « deprivation of inheritance » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Sometimes it is possible that due to some reasons, the heir is prevented from inheriting from the heirs which these are called the obstacles to inheritance. Now, this research seeks to find an answer to this basic question: can the judgment of a murderer who killed his testator and is deprived of inheritance be extended to other similar jurisprudential chapters, such as will? Or if someone kills his excluder to get inheritance or assists in the murder to get inheritance, is he also deprived of inheritance? This article aims at providing a reasoned answer to the above question. To answer this question, using library sources and descriptive-analytical methods, different modes have been considered for the research problem; in the case where the legatee is an heir or not. Assisting in murder and the murder of excluder were also investigated. The opinions of Shi'a and Sunni jurists were examined. Then, by analyzing the opinions and findings of the research, it can be concluded that it is possible to generalize the verdict to other chapters such as the will and the murder of excluder. The reason for its feasibility can be considered as the application of hadiths, the possessing property unlawfully, as well as the abolition of character, custom, Conduct of the Wise, and legislator’s taste. The confirmatory proof for executing the custom of the wise is the application of deprivation in American laws.

Subsidiary punishment, based on the principle of the legality of punishments, is imposed on the perpetrator in addition to the main punishment, depending on the commission of the crime. Subsidiary (Consequential) punishment requires a provision in the law. In intentional murder, the perpetrator is deprived of inheriting property and Diye (blood money) and in quasi-intentional murders and sheer mistake, he is deprived of inheriting Diye. If there are justified reasons for the crime, such as legitimate defense and the law, this punishment will not be applied to the perpetrator. However, in the cases of factors that eliminate criminal liability, such as murder by a minor and an insanity, forced, murder in sleep, unconsciousness, and murder by mistake, the perpetrator is deprived of inheritance. The application of exclusion in inheritance is not limited to the heir, and the possibility of applying it to the testator, the heir, and the deputy in the case of murder needs to be investigated. Deprivation of inheritance in case of murder is a preventive measure against the occurrence of murder, so that people who commit murder with greed to reach the deceased’s estate, refrain from committing it.

There is a consensus among Muslims that murderers are forbidden from inheritance. The main question of this research is that if the legatee murders the testator or the chamberlain, is it possible to extend the sentence of a forbidden murderer of inheritance to a will? Three hypotheses were put forward. Each one of the hypothesis was analyzed. The first case is if he commits murder with the intention of acquiring inheritance, and the second case is if he has no intention of acquiring inheritance. The second hypothesis is that the testator is an heir, and the same two states are assumed for the second hypothesis.

In spite of the notorious jurisprudential view that the inheritance of the right of retribution for couples is reserved for other heirs, the legislator, in Article 351 of the Criminal Code, considers that the couples are deprived of this right. It seems that most of the Imams have been sentenced to this ban only by citing and relying on the reason for the consensus without considering that the sentences were influenced by the pre-Islamic Arab community.The present study, while criticizing the reason for the alleged consensus and other arguments for the exclusion of couples from the right to qisas, has proven that the validity of the alleged consensus has not been proved and is not capable of coping with publicity and communication; and, accordingly, the said evidence to exclude couples from The right to retaliation is not sufficient and, based on evidence such as the signature of the reprisal sentence and the changes in the status of couples from the time of the decree to the present, prove the couples' equal status with relative relatives in enjoying the right of retribution;