چکیده:
The institution of the jury has an ancient history; however, due to its novelty in Iranian law and the lack of clarity regarding its jurisprudential foundations, it has not yet regained its true position. The popular election of jury members, the judge's attention to their verdict, the lack of judicial allocation, and the non-interference of these members in judgment are among the conditions that must be observed today, given the transformations that have occurred in the nature of this institution. Adherence to these conditions in Iranian law can only be realized when such a position for the jury can also be considered from a jurisprudential perspective. Therefore, this article, while explaining the nature of the jury based on its origins, proceeds to critique and review domestic laws and, by providing criteria for the compatibility of this institution with Sharia, offers solutions for strengthening the legislative process.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In Iran, the presence of the jury in political and press crimes was first accepted in Article 79 of the Supplement to the Constitutional Law (passed on 29 Sha'ban 1325) and after the revolution, in Article 168 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; however, due to the youth of this institution in the country and the lack of jurists' opinions, it has not been able to find its true position in Iranian law, which is partly based on jurisprudential foundations.
Once again, the legislator, in the Press Law Bill (passed on 1331/09/11), stipulated: The jury shall express its opinion through a secret ballot regarding whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and in case of guilt, whether they deserve mitigation or not, and the court is obliged to issue its verdict based on the majority decision.
After that, because political and press trials were not prominent in the country, the legislator remained silent on this matter in the approval of the Press Law (1364); however, the subsequent consequences and the intensification of concerns regarding being contrary to Sharia led the legislator in the year 1379 toward considering the complete independence of the judge against the jury's opinion and approving regulations that were inconsistent with the principle of the court's attention to the public view in issuing verdicts.
Therefore, considering the three mentioned differences, it might be said that the institution of the jury has no similarity to the issue of the presence of scholars in court and, from this perspective, what is the responsibility of the jury has no precedent in Islamic judicial jurisprudence.
(
, 
, 
)
