Abstract

The interference of the issue of insanity with the process of implementing hadd punishments is considered one of the important emerging issues in Imami jurisprudence and the field of Iranian criminal law, because contrary to the existing consensus regarding the removal of criminal responsibility during the commission of a crime, the situation of criminals who become insanity after the crime has occurred is a source of disagreement. The present study, by adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and by examining jurisprudential sources, narrative texts, and established regulations, seeks to answer the question: "What are the jurisprudential and legal foundations of dealing with subsequent insanity in the implementation of hadd punishments, and what solution has the Iranian legislator chosen for it?" The analysis of jurisprudential views indicates three schools of thought: first, an approach that emphasizes the unconditional implementation of hadd punishment; second, a view that calls for the abolition or suspension of the implementation of the punishment; and third, a detailed approach that distinguishes between different cases based on the type of crime or stage of the proceedings. The evaluation of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 shows that the legislator, with a moderate and expedient approach, has provided for the suspension or postponement of the execution of the sentence instead of the forced fall of the punishment. The research findings indicate that subsequent insanity, despite not affecting the nature of criminal liability, is considered a religious and legal obstacle to the execution of the punishment until the recovery of sanity and the ability to defend; an interpretation that is most in line with the principles of fair trial and the foundations of human rights.