امکان‌سنجی فقهی سقوط مجازات‌های حدی با توبۀ مرتکب بعد از اثبات جرم

There is a difference of opinion among jurists regarding the abolition or non-abolition of Hudud (Ḥaddī) punishments. The majority believe that Ḥaddī punishments cannot be abolished if the crime is proven through evidence (bayyina) or the judge's knowledge (ʿilm al-qāżī) and judges have discretion to either pardon the criminal or execute the punishment in case the criminal confesses. The Iranian legislator has followed the majority opinion in the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 A.S./2013 A.D. The purpose of the present study is to explore the basis upon which the majority of jurists advocate the non-abolition of Ḥaddī punishments, and to assess to what extent their cited reasons (dalā'yil-īstanādī) are scientifically valid. The study also explores whether it is legally possible to speak of the feasibility of abolition of Ḥaddī punishments through repentance after the crime has been proven by evidence and the judge's knowledge. The study employs the descriptive-analytical method and examines each of these theories using the critical approach. It is concluded that the majority opinion lacks necessary scientific legitimacy due to its fundamental flaws, and so is the theory of the judge's discretion (takhyīr ḥākim), due to its thematic departure from the category of repentance. Therefore, the theory of "abolition of punishment through repentance of the criminal after the proof of the crime" should serve as the basis for criminal policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]