Interference of Punishments in Multiple Offences Deserving Legal Punishment and its Challenges

If in multiple offences deserving legal punishment (ḥadd) the perpetrated offences are similar، the punishments interfere and the person is sentenced to one legal punishment. This judgment is disputable from two perspectives. Firstly، it is against the principle of non-interference of causes and effects. Secondly، it is against the principle of justice and causes disturbance in public security and order. Relying on various reasons، such as traditions، principle of reasonable doubt (qā‘idat al-dar‘)، judgment pertaining to nature، principle of exemption، application of legal evidences، concept of the evidences of repetition of offence، consensus، sīra، and so forth، the jurists have undertaken to resolve the contradiction of this judgment with the principle of non-interference of causes. Although some objections have been raised against some of these evidences، it can be said that judging the interference of punishments have been taken for granted by all the jurists. Existence of discretionary punishments with their exclusive nature (according to the judge’s opinion) in Islamic penal system would resolve the second problem، too. As such، if we execute legal punishment (ḥadd) along with discretionary punishment (ta‘zīr)، it will result in much better administration of justice and prevention of disturbance in public order.