Impact of the Victim's Previous Consent on Lapse of Retaliation and Blood-Money

One of the subjects discussed in the penal law and penal jurisprudence is that whether the victim's previous consent about the crime committed against him is of influence or no influence on lapse of retaliation and blood-money. Though according to Imami jurisprudence and most jurists of other schools, such consent is unlawful, if viewed from the perspective of positive laws (retaliation and blood-money), there are three opinions in this regard. While most Imami jurists as well as jurists of other schools believe in lapse of retaliation and blood-money, some jurists have said that the criminal should be retaliated, and some others believe that bloodmoney should be paid. Since there are different opinions, the legislator has to choose either one of the justified opinions or keeps silence. The only article in which some rules may be found that are similar to the above points is the Article 268 of the Islamic Criminal Law. It seems that rules posed in this Article concerns only remission after crime and has nothing to do with the previous consent. Adopting a fully argumentative approach, the present writing tries to explain, analyze, and evaluate arguments posed for the above opinions. And since if the primary owner of the right of retaliation is known, it will be of direct influence, the related juridical ideas will be discussed and finally a legislative solution will be provided to bridge this legal gap.