نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری رشته حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران
2 استادیار، گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران
3 استادیار، گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد ، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد ، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Parliamentary immunity can be applied in two ways; Substantive immunity means immunity from prosecution and seizure against the performance of representative duties, and immunity from assault means obtaining permission from the parliament to prosecute the representative for crimes unrelated to representative duties. Considering that both of these forms are intended to ensure the safety of the representatives for the proper performance of their duties, it seems that the best solution to guarantee the rights of the members of parliament is to accept parliamentary immunity in both its forms in the law. Crimes committed while performing the duties of a representative are subject to lack of parliamentary responsibility, not parliamentary immunity. Parliamentary immunity only includes misdemeanor and felony crimes. Parliamentary immunity does not apply in illegal matters, because in these matters there is no fear that the representative will be under threat and pressure, and therefore, extending parliamentary immunity to illegal crimes is contrary to its philosophy. Examining the Law of the Supervisory Board on the Behavior of the Representatives also shows that there are very good things in this law to systematize the rights and obligations of the representatives, although it also has gaps. One of the important points of this law is determining punishments that do not have a deterrent aspect.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)