واکاوی عنصر غفلت در پرتو شبهجرم غفلت؛ با تاکید بر حقوق کامنلا | ||
| فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 28، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 112، آذر 1404، صفحه 23-42 اصل مقاله (687.03 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2025.235885.2735 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نسرین مهرا1؛ سمیه پرهیزکاری* 2 | ||
| 1استاد دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران نویسنده مسئول :s_parhizkary@sbu.ac.ir | ||
| چکیده | ||
| شبهجرم بهعنوان یکی از انواع مسئولیتها در حقوق کامنلا، که مشخصاً نه در حوزه حقوق کیفری و نه حقوق مبتنی بر قرارداد، بلکه در مرزی میان این دو زیست میکند، شناخته شده است. شبهجرم شامل مجموعه قواعدی است که با هدف جبرانِ آسیبهای ناشی از اقداماتِ زیانبار اشخاص، بر آن است تا بسته به نوعِ حق تضییعشده، ضمانتاجرایی بازدارنده ارائه دهد. دراین میان، شبهجرم غفلت بهعنوان یکی از انواع شاخههای شبهجرم، کاربرد و رواج بیشتری یافته است. تکیه اصلی این شبهجرم، همانگونه که از نام آن پیداست، بر عنصر غفلت بنا شده و تنها ضمانتاجرای آن، جبرانِ خسارتِ آسیبی است که درنتیجه اعمال غفلتانگیز دیگران حادث میشود. امروزه بسیاری از حوادث، بهسبب اهمال و غفلت مرتکب نسبتبه پیامدهای عمل و عدم پیشبینی شرایطی است که میتواند منجر به سرانجام ناگوار و نتایج جبرانناپذیری گردد. درواقع، همه جرایم بهطور عمدی رخ نمیدهند، بلکه گاه شخص مرتکب عملی میشود که بهسبب وجود عناصر دیگر عمل او قابل سرزنش است. در اینجا نیز اگرچه مرتکب غفلت، عنصر روانی لازم برای ارتکاب جرم را ندارد، با عدول از استانداردهای رفتاری یک انسان متعارف، حقوق دیگران را نقض میکند و چهبسا ظرفیت و ریسک تبدیل به یک بزهکار در آیندهای نزدیک را خواهد داشت. لذا غفلت، گامی ابتدایی است که میتواند بستر بیاحتیاطیهای آینده را فراهم کند؛ بهویژه زمانی که فعالیتهای ناشی از غفلت، بهطور آشکار ریسک آسیب و ضرر آینده را درپی داشته باشد و تهدیدی علیه حیات و سلامت افراد تلقی شود. در چنین شرایطی تحول در مفهوم عنصر روانی جرم و درنتیجه تغییر در نوع مسئولیت و گذر از ضمانتاجرای جبران خسارت به یک ضمانتاجرای شدیدتر از نوع کیفر، در پیشگیری از اعمال غفلتانگیز و پیشبرد رفاه اجتماعی موثرتر خواهد بود؛ امریکه مستلزم توجیه غفلت بهعنوان عنصر روانی کافی برای ارتکاب جرم است. این نوشتار با روشی توصیفی و تحلیلی، امکان تبدیل غفلت به عنصر روانی جرم را بررسی میکند و با توسل به رویکردهایی مانند رویکرد ایجاد ریسک، رویکرد ردیابی و سایر عوامل مرتبط، امکانِ مسئولیت کیفری را باوجود شرایطی برای مرتکب غفلت توجیه مینماید. در این راستا، دستاورد این پژوهش، لزوم اتخاذ سیاست افتراقی در برخورد با عنصر غفلت و ارائه معیارهایی است که این تمایز را توجیهپذیر نماید. | ||
تازه های تحقیق | ||
| ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| شبهجرم غفلت؛ بیاحتیاطی؛ ریسک؛ رویکرد افتراقی؛ کامنلا | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Analyzing the Element of Negligence in the Context of the Tort of Negligence; Emphasizing on Common Law | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Nasrin Mehra1؛ Somaye Parhizkary2 | ||
| 1Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 22. PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran Corresponding Author Email: s_parhizkary@sbu.ac.ir | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Tort is recognized as a type of liability in Common Law, which specifically exists not within the realm of criminal law nor contract-based law, but in a boundary between the two. As an independent legal branch in Common Law, tort primarily focuses on the breach of a duty of care and the subsequent compensation for damages to private individuals. Unlike contractual law, in tort, there is no pre-determined obligation that binds individuals to perform specific duties; rather, the core of tort emphasizes how individuals should behave towards one another. In contrast, tort is fundamentally different from criminal law as well. A tort is neither sufficiently reprehensible nor a violation of norms to warrant a criminal response, nor does it typically provide the requisite mental element for a crime. In criminal law, we deal with the violation of norms and values respected by the community, which the public prosecutor is responsible for pursuing. In contrast, tort involves the breach of a general duty imposed by law upon citizens to frame the standard of careful conduct, situated at a level lower than the values protected by criminal law. Thus, tort is a completely unique institution, distinct from other legal institutions. It comprises a set of rules aimed at compensating for harms resulting from individuals' injurious actions, seeking to provide a deterrent sanction depending on the type of right infringed. Among these, the tort of negligence, as one of its branches, has gained wider application and prevalence. The main foundation of this tort, as its name implies, is built upon the element of negligence, and its sole sanction is compensation for the damage resulting from the negligent acts of others. Nowadays, many incidents occur due to the perpetrator's oversight and failure to consider the consequences of their actions and their failure to foresee circumstances that could lead to dire outcomes and irreparable results. Indeed, not all wrongful acts occur intentionally; sometimes a person commits an act that is blameworthy due to the presence of other elements. Here, although the negligent perpetrator lacks the requisite mental element for committing a crime, by deviating from the behavioral standards of a reasonable person, they have violated the rights of others and may very well possess the potential and risk of becoming an offender in the near future. Therefore, negligence is an initial step that can pave the way for future recklessness, especially when activities arising from negligence openly carry the risk of future harm and loss and are considered a threat to individuals' lives and health. In such circumstances, an evolution in the concept of the mental element of crime, consequently changing the type of liability and transitioning from a compensatory sanction to a more severe punitive sanction, would be more effective in preventing negligent acts and promoting social welfare—a matter that necessitates justifying negligence as a sufficient mental element for committing a crime. Methods This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources and conducting a comparative study particularly within the legal systems of England to examine the possibility of transforming "negligence" into a mental element within the structure of crime. Results and Discussions This research seeks to justify the possibility of criminal liability for a negligent perpetrator under specific conditions by resorting to approaches such as the risk creation approach, the tracing approach, and other related factors. In today's world, risk is accepted as a factor that justifies the imposition of liability and encompasses a wide range of different approaches. In other words, although knowledge is an inherent characteristic of criminal responsibility, and imposing criminal liability on a negligent agent distances us from the fundamental principles of criminal liability, such as the presumption of innocence, those who propose the idea of potential awareness believe that the mere failure to notice the existence of an "unjustifiable risk" itself indicates a blameworthy and serious practical indifference to the interests that the perpetrator's action actually threatens. Indeed, what makes the negligent agent blameworthy is their apparent indifference to the lives and property of others. This theory is further reinforced by the "Tracing Approach." According to this approach, the criminal liability of the accused in cases of negligence lies in their prior criminal acts. Abstractly, the tracing approach posits that fault arising from negligence must be identified by tracing it back to the accused's prior acts or omissions that caused their unawareness of the relevant danger and risk. In fact, negligence should be understood within a broader framework based on the general principle of "prior fault." Prior fault occurs when a person can be held criminally responsible for a subsequent act resulting from their prior criminal behavior.The key point in justifying criminal liability for negligence is tracing the person's carelessness and inadvertent mental state to prove their prior fault, which at a minimum stems from recklessness (the lowest level of criminal liability). Conclusion The influence of modern advancements and innovations on today's society creates a cycle of risks whose failure to be anticipated and, consequently, prevented, can lead to harmful outcomes. Many of the adverse factors humanity currently faces stem from negligence, which allows individuals to evade criminal liability. The sphere of influence of negligence is ongoing, not only in private domains and interpersonal relationships but also in public spheres and areas fundamentally connected to people's lives and property. To this end, establishing criteria for creating a differentiated approach is essential. This means that by considering a standard such as the safeguarding of human life and health, in instances where negligent acts could lead to the loss of these values, a more severe response is warranted, and mere negligence can be considered a basis for imposing criminal liability. Similarly, considerations such as the necessity of environmental preservation can serve as grounds for deviating from the current traditional system. Thus, establishing a differentiated approach that creates a balanced and proportionate relationship between the risk of an activity and the degree of negligence on one hand, and ensuring security and justice for potential victims on the other, is highly significant. Factors such as controlling dangerous activities, risk management, blameworthiness, and holding corporations accountable must be analyzed in light of the scale of activity, profitability, societal benefit, and the advancement of justice to justify a differential treatment of negligence | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Tort of Negligence, Carelessness, Risk, Differential Approach, Common Law | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
کتاب
مقاله
References Books
Articles
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,125 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 490 |
||