مداخلات یوژنیکی در نظام عدالت کیفری ایران؛ ارزیابی حدود مشروعیت در پرتو فقه امامیه و اصول بنیادین حقوق کیفری

مژگان  غفاری چراتی; کیومرث کلانتری; رضا  نصیری لاریمی

Authors

Mozhgan Ghaffari Cherati Ph.D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9624-1559
Kumars Kalantari Professor, Department of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran | Visiting Professor, Department of Law, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran Corresponding author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9624-1559
Reza Nasiri Larimi Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3618-0934

Keywords:

Eugenic Interventions, Criminal Justice, Imamiyya Jurisprudence, Criminal Responsibility, Genetic Interventions, Crime Prevention, Human Dignity

Abstract

Advances in genetic technologies and the expanding capacity to intervene in human biological characteristics have raised novel questions concerning the limits of the legitimate use of such technologies within the criminal justice system. The central question of the present study is whether eugenic interventions targeting individuals can be justified for the purposes of crime prevention or crime control on the basis of genetic characteristics or assessments of the risk of offending. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the limits of the legitimacy of such interventions in light of the foundations of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and the fundamental principles of criminal law. The findings indicate that, within the framework of the examined jurisprudential foundations, although therapeutic genetic interventions may, in principle, be justified provided that the relevant conditions and requirements of Islamic law are observed, such permissibility cannot be extended to non-therapeutic genetic interventions undertaken for criminal justice purposes. This latter category of interventions faces significant constraints arising from principles such as human dignity, free will, the prohibition of harm, bodily integrity, and the limits of the public interest. From the perspective of criminal law, the principles of individual criminal responsibility, the presumption of innocence, legality, proportionality, and necessity likewise impose substantial restrictions on recourse to genetic interventions for criminal justice purposes. Accordingly, biological characteristics, genetic predispositions, or predictions of future risk cannot replace the requirements for establishing criminal responsibility or, by themselves, constitute a sufficient basis for justifying criminal justice intervention in individuals’ rights. On this basis, the legitimacy of eugenic interventions for criminal justice purposes cannot be justified solely by reference to crime prevention, social interests, or the potential effectiveness of technology; rather, assessing their legitimacy requires the simultaneous observance of the requirements arising from the foundations of Imamiyyah jurisprudence, individuals’ fundamental rights, and the fundamental principles of criminal law.

References

Agar, N. (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470775004

Al-Bar, M. A., & Chamsi-Pasha, H. (2015). Contemporary Bioethics: Islamic Perspective. Springer.

Al-Majmaei, T. H. A. (2022). The Relationship of Preserving Progeny to the Objectives of Sharia. International journal of humanities and social sciences(34), 51-66.

Andorno, R. (2009). Human Dignity and Human Rights as a Common Ground for a Global Bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 34(3), 223-240.

Appleman, L. I. (2018). Deviancy, Dependency, and Disability: The Forgotten History of Eugenics and Mass Incarceration. Duke Law Journal, 68(3), 417-479.

Aramesh, K. (2009). The Ownership of Human Body: An Islamic Perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 2, 4.

Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive Justice. Oxford University Press.

Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). Behavioral Genetics: The Science of Antisocial Behavior. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1-2), 7-46.

Beecher-Monas, E., & Garcia-Rill, E. (2006). Genetic Predictions of Future Dangerousness: Is There a Blueprint for Violence? Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1-2), 301-341.

Berryessa, C. M., & Cho, M. K. (2013). Ethical, Legal, Social, and Policy Implications of Behavioral Genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 14, 515-534.

Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge University Press.

Eftekhari, A. (2013). Genealogy of the Rule of Expediency in Shiite Political Jurisprudence. Transcendent Politics, 1(1), 79-96.

Erman, R. B. (2023). Perspective Chapter: Criminal Responsibility. In S. Güney (Ed.), Criminal Behavior: The Underlyings, and Contemporary Applications (pp. 169-183). IntechOpen.

Farahany, N. A., & Coleman, J. E., Jr. (2006). Genetics and Responsibility: To Know the Criminal from the Crime. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1-2), 115-164.

Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. J. M. Dent & Co.

Gerards, J. (2013). How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(2), 466-490.

Ghanbarpour, B. (2024). Conditional Legitimacy in Human Genome Manipulation. Studies in Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, 16(35), 87-112. https://doi.org/10.22075/feqh.2023.28771.3420

Hakim, S. M. T. (1971). Mustamsak al-Urwa al-Wuthqa (3rd ed., Vol. 10). Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi.

Jafari, M. (2017). Rethinking the Concept of Criminal Liability for the Act of Another. Criminal Law Research Quarterly, 6(20), 173-200.

Katz, J., & Abel, C. F. (1984). The Medicalization of Repression: Eugenics and Crime. Contemporary Crises, 8(3), 227-241.

Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Alfred A. Knopf.

Lombardo, P. A. (2008). Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Johns Hopkins University Press.

McSwiggan, S., Elger, B., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). The Forensic Use of Behavioral Genetics in Criminal Proceedings: Case of the MAOA-L Genotype. International journal of law and psychiatry, 50, 17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.09.005

Mohaghegh Damad, S. M. (2003). Rules of Jurisprudence: Civil Section (Vol. 1). Center for the Publication of Islamic Sciences.

Mortazavi-Rad, S. H., Raei-Dehghi, M., Abbasian, R., & Nikyar, H. (2020). A Reflection on the Approach of Imami Jurists with Emphasis on the Arguments of Opponents of Genetic Interventions. Jurisprudential Foundations of Islamic Law, 13(25), 287-312.

Mousavi Rokni, F. S., & Mousavi Rokni, S. M. H. (2014). The Right to Life of an Abnormal Fetus from the Perspective of Human Ethics and Public Interest. Medical Law, 8(31), 71-114.

Sachedina, A. (2007). The Search for Islamic Bioethics Principles. In R. E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper, & J. R. McMillan (Eds.), Principles of Health Care Ethics (2nd ed., pp. 117-125). John Wiley & Sons.

Siyam, J., & Zanki, N. a.-D. (2018). The Objective of Preserving Progeny and Its Impact on the Juristic Characterization of Medical Developments in Islamic Jurisprudence: Applied Models. University of Sharjah Journal of Sharia and Islamic Studies, 15(2), 62-96.

Summers, S. J. (2022). Sentencing and Human Rights: The Limits on Punishment. Oxford University Press.

Tabatabaei, S. M. H. (1984a). Translation of Tafsir al-Mizan (Vol. 13). Allameh Tabatabaei Scientific and Intellectual Foundation; Raja Cultural Publishing Center; Amir Kabir Publications.

Tabatabaei, S. M. H. (1984b). Translation of Tafsir al-Mizan (Vol. 20). Islamic Publications Office.