The position of knowledge of the judge in a crime evidence of proof (with the approach to changes on Islamic Penal Code, adopted in 2013)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jsshr.vol3iss03pp58-61Abstract
Knowledge of the judge as one of the evidence of proof helps to judge in penal and civil Affairs. Since the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran has accepted "conscience convincing system" is accepted, science and convincing of a judge are support and criteria for validity of evidences to prove case. In statute law of Knowledge of the judge is accepted in Criminal affairs as well as support and validity for other reasons and as one of reasons doe criminal evidences. Methodology: The majority of Imamieh scholars consider Knowledge of the judge as absolute proof, but some of other scholars consider Knowledge of the judge against the Prophet. In Islamic penal code (1991) has been discussed sporadically about the Knowledge of the judge. Results: But In 2013 law, Knowledge of the judge assigned a separate topic to itself. In this law, after stating Knowledge of the judge along with the other evidence of proof, the Knowledge of the judge is defined And expressed that Knowledge of the judge is to ensure that the documents In something is presented with judge and science is announced as a better reasons on that no reason is able to conflict with science documentary of a judge. Conclusion: In this thesis, the position of Knowledge of the judge is evaluated among other evidence of proof of crime with regard to new developments in the Islamic Penal Code.References
Bassiouni, M. C., 1982. The Islamic criminal justice system. London: Oceana Publications.
Bennett, W. L. 1979. Rhetorical transformation of evidence in criminal trials: Creating grounds for legal judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 653, 311-323.
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. 2006. Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 322, 188-200.
Imwinkelried, E. J. 1997. Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: Should the Judge or the Jury Decide the Question of Whether the Accused Committed an Alleged Uncharged Crime Proffered under Federal Rule of Evidence 404. . Louis ULJ, 42, 813.
Kaufmann, P. M. 2008. Admissibility of neuropsychological evidence in criminal cases. Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting, 55-90.
Law Commission. 2011. Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales (Vol. 829). The Stationery Office.
Lippman, M. 1989. Islamic criminal law and procedure: religious fundamentalism v. modern law. BC Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 12, 29.
May, R., & Wierda, M. 2002. International criminal evidence. Brill Nijhoff.
McKusick, M. 1938. Techniques in Proof of Other Crimes to Show Guilty Knowledge and Intent. Iowa L. Rev., 24, 471.
Shuy, R. W. 1993. Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Smith, V. L., & Studebaker, C. A. 1996. What do you expect? The influence of people's prior knowledge of crime categories on fact-finding. Law and Human Behavior, 205, 517-532.
Turvey, B. E. (Ed.). 2011. Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. Academic press.
