چکیده:
Despite the legislative accuracy in the enactment of laws, there are times when one is unable to enforce two rules of the law at the same time. In these circumstances, it is necessary to clarify which rule the individual will implement. one of the most important issues is the necessity of interpretation of laws, incongruity among the legal provisions which constitute the ambiguity in the manner of law enforcement. incongruity occurs in the implementation phase of the rule, and at this stage they are not aggregated, meaning that it cannot be done at the same time. in the present study, there are various types of incongruity and solutions to solve it with regard to whether there is preferential between the two sides. it also tries to analyze one of the examples of incongruity in criminal law, that is, multiple criminal identities, so that in material multiplicity, as the basis of the legislator is a punishment for two acts of crime, it is accepted as the basis of two offences. it is necessary to obtain a rational method in order to provide coherence within the legal system.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Moral concurrence can be an instance of conflict when the legislator's basis is to rule with a single punishment for two criminal titles; because in this case, the two criminal titles require two punishments, and choosing one penalty for two criminal titles becomes the point of conflict, which must be resolved through existing solutions regarding the aforementioned legal contradiction.
However, at other times, a single act occurs that has multiple criminal titles, and the legislator is based on the principle that, based on a single cause, a single punishment should be considered for both titles; here, in the application of a single punishment, a choice must be made between the lesser and the more severe punishment; it is in this state that conflict is created, and in fact, it is the overlapping part in the relationship of general and specific from one aspect; because our legislator, in the discussion of moral multiplicity in Ta'zir crimes, has based it on the principle that based on a single cause, a single punishment must be issued; therefore, in Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code, the more severe punishment is accepted, which causes the existing conflict in this state to be resolved; although in the case of 1.
In the moral multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes, the discussion of two criminal titles and consequently two punishments arises, and when the legislator's basis is to determine a single punishment based on a single cause, a conflict occurs, and the legislator, by proposing the most severe punishment and its priority in Article 131 of the Islamic Penal Code, has ended the conflict existing in moral multiplicity.
(
, 
, 
)
