اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 510 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,413 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,295,361 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,288,310 |
واکاوی نوع صلاحیت ذاتی دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری و رویه قضایی | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 24 بهمن 1403 اصل مقاله (876.99 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله ترویجی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30497/law.2025.247067.3635 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمدجواد فتحی1؛ مهرداد موحدی* 2؛ وحید دادگستر3 | ||
| 1دانشیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. | ||
| 3دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق قضایی، دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پس از لازم‌الاجرا شدن قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری مصوب ۱۳۹۲، مواد قانونی متکثر و آشفته راجع به صلاحیت دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان، موجب بروز تردیدهایی در خصوص نوع صلاحیت ذاتی این دادگاه گردید. از یک سو، برخی مواد قانونی بر «اختصاصی» بودن دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان تصریح داشته و منطبق بر استانداردها و اصول دادرسی عادلانه وضع گردیده‌اند و از سویی دیگر، موادی از قانون موصوف دلالت بر «تخصصی» بودن این محاکم دارند و آن را شعبه‌ای از دادگاه‌های کیفری دو محسوب نموده‌اند. اختلاف‌نظر میان حقوقدانان و تهافت آراء در رویه قضایی پیرامون این موضوع نیز مشهود است و همین امر موجب سردرگمی در شناسایی مرجع حل اختلاف در صلاحیت گردیده و ارائه راه حل در این موضوع مهم که از جمله قواعد آمره است را به سلیقه قضات واگذار نموده است. در این مقاله، با بررسی حدود پنجاه فقره پرونده از محاکم استان اصفهان، و آراء صادره از دادگاه‌های اطفال و نوجوانان، کیفری دو، تجدیدنظر استان و دیوان‌عالی‌کشور، در صدد دریافت رویه قضایی بوده‌ایم تا دریابیم که آیا دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان دادگاهی اختصاصی و دارای صلاحیت ذاتی متفاوت و مستقل از دادگاه‌های کیفری دو می‌باشد یا شعبه‌ای از محاکم کیفری دو به‌شمار می‌رود که به جرایم اطفال و نوجوانان به‌صورت تخصصی رسیدگی می‌نماید؟ شایان ذکر است، نحوه حل اختلاف در صلاحیت رسیدگی به این پرونده‌ها در رویه قضایی نیز دور از نظر نگارندگان نبوده است. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان در برابر دادگاه‌های انقلاب، نظامی، کیفری یک، کیفری یک ویژه رسیدگی به جرایم نوجوانان و کیفری دو، یک مرجع «اختصاصی» محسوب می‌شود و هرگونه حل اختلاف در صلاحیت میان دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان با مراجع پیش‌گفته، منحصراً با «دیوان‌عالی کشور» است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| دادگاه اطفال و نوجوانان؛ صلاحیت ذاتی؛ صلاحیت نسبی؛ اختلاف در صلاحیت؛ دیوان‌عالی‌کشور | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| An Analysis of the Inherent Jurisdiction of Juvenile Courts in the Judicial Practice of Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Javad Fathi1؛ Mehrdad Movahedi2؛ Vahid Dadgostar3 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran. | ||
| 3PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Judicial Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran. Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ∴ Introduction ∴ Juvenile courts play a pivotal role in shaping the future societal outcomes of a nation, given that children and adolescents represent its most valuable asset. The complexity of juvenile delinquency arises from a convergence of social, economic, and psychological factors. When young individuals encounter barriers to social opportunities and experience restricted access to resources, they may be drawn into behaviors that violate societal norms. Recognizing that criminal behavior in youth is not solely the result of personal shortcomings but also arises from unequal social conditions, lawmakers and justice practitioners have sought to create frameworks that balance public safety with the developmental needs of young offenders. In Iran, this balance has been pursued through specialized legislation and judicial structures aimed at addressing juvenile offenses more flexibly and rehabilitatively than traditional criminal courts. The 2013 Code of Criminal Procedure introduced several provisions related to juvenile adjudication, signifying a step toward specialized processes. However, the status of juvenile courts within the broader judicial hierarchy remains contested: some view these courts as separate entities wielding an exclusive jurisdiction, while others argue that they function simply as specialized branches within the existing criminal court system. This extended abstract focuses on exploring the legal and practical implications of these competing interpretations, examining how the classification of juvenile courts affects procedural fairness, judicial efficiency, and the welfare of young defendants. ∴ Research Question ∴ This study seeks to address the central question: Are Iranian juvenile courts vested with a genuinely exclusive jurisdiction, or do they operate as specialized branches within the general structure of the criminal court system? More specifically, it investigates how the legal framework and judicial practice interact to define the actual scope and authority of juvenile courts in Iran. By examining statutory provisions, as well as interpretive rulings by the Supreme Court and appellate bodies, the research aims to clarify whether these courts function independently in administering justice for juveniles or remain subject to the conventional boundaries of criminal jurisdiction. ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ Building on the principle that juveniles warrant unique procedural safeguards and rehabilitative measures, the authors hypothesize that juvenile courts should be recognized as holding exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving child and adolescent offenders. Despite some views suggesting that they merely represent specialized branches of standard criminal courts, the hypothesis posits that the legislature’s intent—when read alongside overarching goals of child welfare—supports the notion of a distinct legal sphere. This distinction, if confirmed, would ensure that juvenile defendants receive tailored adjudicative processes, reinforcing the rehabilitative focus and aligning with international standards that emphasize specialized treatment for young offenders. ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ To explore the jurisdictional nature of juvenile courts in Iran, this study adopts a doctrinal legal research approach, centering on primary and secondary legal sources. Primary sources include constitutional principles, the 2013 Code of Criminal Procedure, judicial guidelines, and relevant statutes. Secondary sources involve scholarly commentaries, academic articles, and analyses of juvenile justice reforms, both within Iran and from international perspectives. These materials will be carefully reviewed to compare theoretical perspectives with existing legal provisions that define the scope of juvenile court authority. ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ The findings of this study highlight the persistent uncertainties surrounding the jurisdictional status of juvenile courts in Iran. Analysis of statutory provisions in the 2013 Code of Criminal Procedure, including Articles 294, 298, 304, 314, 315, 403, and 444, reveals divergent interpretations in both scholarly opinion and judicial practice. On one side, those advocating an exclusive jurisdiction model argue that separate and specialized adjudication for juveniles is vital to uphold fair-trial principles and honor the rehabilitative aims of juvenile justice. On the other side, proponents of a specialized (rather than exclusive) status emphasize certain articles suggesting that juvenile courts are part of the general criminal system, albeit with distinct procedural nuances. These conflicting views have produced a number of inconsistent appellate rulings, and even the Supreme Court has not reached total consensus. Such discord has practical consequences: a lack of clarity in jurisdictional rules can invalidate prior judicial actions or delay proceedings, undermining both the interests of juveniles and broader principles of justice. ∴ Conclusion ∴ This study concludes that the exclusive jurisdiction model offers a more coherent framework for addressing juvenile delinquency under Iran’s legal system. Drawing upon the principle enshrined in Article 45 of the 2012 Family Protection Act—requiring courts to prioritize the best interests of children and adolescents—the reasoning behind exclusive jurisdiction becomes increasingly compelling. By recognizing juvenile courts as distinct entities with a specialized mandate, the legal system can more effectively balance public safety with the rehabilitative needs of young offenders. Although certain provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure generate ambiguity, the overall philosophy underpinning the Iranian juvenile justice system supports differentiated procedures for minors. To resolve ongoing disputes over jurisdiction, the Supreme Court should be granted clear authority to interpret relevant statutes, thus fostering consistency and certainty. Ultimately, embracing an exclusive jurisdiction paradigm aligns with the broader objective of ensuring that judicial outcomes serve the welfare and development of children and adolescents. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Juvenile Court, Inherent Jurisdiction, Relative Jurisdiction, Jurisdictional Dispute, Supreme Court | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 78 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 45 |
||