A Comparative Study of Duty to Retreat from the Position of Self-defense in Common Law and Imamiyah Jurisprudence

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Rafsanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rafsanjan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundaments of the Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Siences, Rafsanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rafsanjan

Abstract

Self-defense is a defense that is often raised by defendants in a criminal trial who were involved in a fight with the victim that resulted in the victim’s serious injury or death. The law recognizes the right that someone has to protect his or her own person. but there is some situations which sometimes appears in the criminal defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if criminal defendants are to prove that their conduct was justified One of these situations in self- defense is that the attacker has started his attack but yet Necessity condition has not existed and the defender has ability to retreat and escape. The key question is whether he has to retreat against the offensive attack or he can continue based on the right to defend himself? This article explores the doctrine of self-defence within the context of the challenges about duty to retreat. This principle requires that someone who found themselves in a violent confrontation had to try to defuse the situation and retreat. In fact the general principle behind the duty to retreat laws is that the use of force - lethal or otherwise - is not justified until a person has made a reasonable effort to avoid confrontation, either by de-escalation or an attempt to leave the area where the threat is occurring. common law in the recent centuries based on the lesser evil and more benefit as a society theory, would require the defender to retreat, since escape is a way to realize the survival of the attacker (more benefit) and reduce the probability of crime (less evil). Failure to do so, despite the achievement of all other conditions of defense, causes  rejecting the defense principle. English common-law doctrine strictly limited the cases to which Stand Your Ground applied and earliest American self-defense doctrine imposed a general Duty of Retreat, but now also admitted exceptions such as "Castle Doctrine" it is named for the axiom that "a man's home is his castle. In the imamiyah jurisprudential texts, the issue of duty to retreat is stated after the defense principal and is only intended to emphasize the protection of the defender during his inability to attack the attacker. Therefore, if the conditions of defense are achieved, the principle of the defense is dominant, and his failure to escape has not a legal effect. German criminal law, based on the individualist theory of the rights to defense, rejects duty to retreat. this theory states that a person "who is attacked" anywhere he is lawfully present has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm. But based on the principle of the responsibility of the attacker in the private defense in German criminal law, in the defense against the invasion and children the defender has to retreat or it is considered as a duress defence. Therefore, the defender in these cases is required to retreat. Because he, in the absence of a retreat with the possibility of doing so, he himself is guilty of creating his own duress condition and this is a case of defying his defense.

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی و عربی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. ابن قدامه، عبدالله‌بن احمد (1374)، المقنع مع الحاشیه، ج 3، چ 3، قاهره: المطبعه السلفیه ومکتبتها.
    2. اردبیلی، محمدعلی (1386)، حقوق جزای عمومی، ج 1، چ 17، تهران: نشر میزان.
    3. اصفهانى، فاضل هندى، محمد‌بن حسن (1416ق)، کشف اللثام و الإبهام عن قواعد الأحکام، ج 11، چ 1، قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامى وابسته به جامعۀ مدرسین حوزۀ علمیه.
    4. حلی، حسن‌بن یوسف مظهر (علامه)، (1413ق)، قواعد الاحکام فی معرفه الحلال و الحرام، چ 1، قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.
    5. سبزواری، سید عبد‌الأعلی (١٤١٣ق)، مهذّب الأحکام فی بیان الحـلال و الحـرام، ج 28، قم: مؤسسۀ المنار.
    6. شامبیاتی، هوشنگ (1374)، حقوق جزای عمومی، ج 1، چ 5، تهران: انتشارات ویستار.
    7. موسوی خمینی، سید روح‌الله (1377)، تحریرالوسیله، قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی حوزۀ علمیه.
    8. عاملی، زید‌الدین‌بن علی (شهید ثانی)، (1385)، الروضه البهیه فی شرح المعه دمشقیه، قم: انتشارات قدس، دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی.
    9. مقدس اردبیلی، محمد‌بن احمد (1403ق)، مجمع الفائده والبرهان فی شرح ارشاد الاذهان، چ 1، قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.

    ب) مقالات

    1. برجی، یعقوب‌علی (1385)، «شرایط دفاع مشروع از نگاه فریقین»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌نامۀ حکمت و فلسفۀ اسلامی، سال پنجم، ش 17.
    2. چگنی، مهدی؛ قیاسی، جلال‌الدین؛ خزایی، میثم (1396)، «بررسی تطبیقی امکان فرار در دفاع مشروع در حقوق کیفری ایران، فرانسه و مصر» مجلۀ علمی- پژوهشی علوم اجتماعی، دورۀ 11، ش 39.
    3. ساریخانی، عادل (1395)، «فوریت در دفاع مشروع غیرتهاجمی از منظر فقه اسلام و غرب»، مجلۀ تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، دورۀ 3، ش 4.
    4. شمس ناتری، محمدابراهیم و زارع، محمدکاظم (1396)، «بازشناسی مفهوم دفاع مشروع در قانون جدید مجازات اسلامی»، مجلۀ فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دورۀ 50، ش 1.
    5. نظری‌نژاد، محمدرضا (1389)، «اکراه و ضرورت در حقوق کیفری (مطالعۀ تطبیقی)»، پژوهش‌نامۀ حقوقی دانشگاه گیلان، دورۀ 1، ش 1.

    ب) خارجی

    - Books

    15. Ashworth, Andrew and Horder, Jeremy (2013), Principles of criminal law, Oxford University Press.

    16. Bernsmann, K. (1996). "Private Self-Defence and Necessity in German Penal Law and in the Penal Law Proposal—Some Remarks", Israel Law Review, 30(1-2), 171-187.

    17. Brown, Richard Maxwell (1991), No duty to retreat: Violence and values in American History and society, Oxford University Press on Demand.

    18. Fletcher, George P. (1998), Basic concepts of criminal law, Oxford University Press.

    19. Fletcher. George P. (2000), Rethinking criminal law, Oxford University Press.

    20. Foster, M. (1767), A Report of Some Proceedings on the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Goal Delivery for the Trial of the Rebels in the Year 1746 in the County of Surry and of Other Crown Cases.To which are added discourses upon a few branches of the Crown Law, Sarah Cotter.

    21. Hawkins, William (1824), A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown Or a System of the Principal Matters Relating to that Subject, Digested Under Proper Heads: In Two Volumes.Of courts of criminal jurisdiction and the modes of proceeding therein, (Vol. 2). Sweet.

    22. Leverick, Fiona (2006), Killing in Self-defence, OUP Oxford.

     

    - Articles

    23. Kadish, Sanford, H. (1976), "Respect for life and regard for rights in the criminal law", Calif. L. Rev., 64,871.

    24. Neyland, Johan Paul. (2008), "A Man's Car Is His Castle: The Expansion of Texas Castle Doctrine Eliminating the Duty to Retreat in Areas outside the Home", Baylor L. Rev, 60, 719.

    25. Robinson, Paul, H. (1975), "A theory of justification: societal harm as a prerequisite for criminal liability", UCLA L. Rev, 23, 266.

    26. Robinson, Paul. H, Kussmaul, M. G, Stoddard, C. M., Rudyak, I, & Kuersten, A. (2015), "The American criminal code: General defenses", Journal of Legal Analysis, 7(1), 37-150.

    27. Wallace, Lacy (2014), "Castle Doctrine Legislation: Unintended Effects for Gun Ownership?" Justice Policy Journal, 11(2), 1-17.

    28. Williams, G. (1982), "The theory of excuses", Criminal Law Review, (NOV), 732-742.

Comparative Law Review
Volume 11, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2020
Pages 81-98

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics