The Criminal Responsibility in Kleptomania and the Consequences of Theft in Islamic Penal Law

Yıl 2019, , 535 - 557, 30.04.2019

Emel Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.28949/bilimname.531930

Öz

According to the Islamic penal law the application of a criminal sanction to a perpetrator requires the presence of some certain features in the perpetrator himself/herself. Sanity and comprehension are the most important ones of these features which have been elaborated under the title of “ahliyyah” in classical fiqh literature. There is no dispute between muslim jurists over mitigating or quashing a fixed sanction due to an illness blocking sanity and comprehension. Some well-known illnesses affecting criminal accountability are mentioned in the classical fiqh literature, but their number is very limited so to enlight contemporary questions. Kleptomania is a modern disorder, specified by urging a person to steal by blocking his/her self control, and it is currently recognised as a way of defence in secular law. Here the question is: How would be “pathological stealing” evaluated by the Islamic law which punishes stealing with a major sentence like “hadd” or with “ta‘zir” in case of doubt or ambiguity? First of all, in order to answer thisnquestion it is inevitable to know the nature of kleptomania and define it. Kleptomania is a repeated failure to resist the impulse to steal an object with no intention of personal use or monetary gain. The action of stealing is not made with a financial motive as in an ordinary theft but with a motive of disposing a tension prior to the action. It ıs neither planned nor assisted by any others. But the sanity of a kleptomaniac is not under doubt and they are able to refrain from action in the presence of security guard, policeman or camera. Indicating that kleptomaniacs are able to comprehend the result of their actions and they can somehow resist stealing. They feel guilt and shame after the action and get rid of the items they steal in different ways. Most individuals with kleptomania try unsuccessfully to stop themselves from that crime but the inability to stop leads to feelings of shame and attempts to commit suicide.   
 Muslim jurists classify crimes of theft as sarikah and ikhtilas in compliance with some determined conditions. Sarikah is the basic crime of theft punished with the major sentence hadd, and other offences which do not fulfill the conditions of sarikah become ikhtilās punished with ta‘zir. Sarikah is “the taking of someone others certain amount (nisāb) of durable goods which are under protection (hirz) with the intention of possession”, secretly and without his/her information. The action must avoid any suspicion whether it is Sarikah or not, so had can be imposed. The term secretly means taking the property without the information and will of its owner. The stolen thing must be something accepted as property in Islamic law. Foods and ordinary, consumed goods (الأشياء التافهة) are not included to the definition. Permission for enterance to a place given by the owner (e.g. a market or house) is a reason for a shortcoming in sarikah. Another condition is that the property must belong “completely” to someone else. Given that   information abowe a prior possible analogy -disregarding the pathological part of kleptomania- could be reached as kleptomania and sarikah are the same in terms of the crime’s secrecy; but since kleptomaniacs usually steal things with low monetary worth, the crime mostly would turn into ikhtilās punished with ta’zir. Also the intention of stealing without a monetary motivation arouses a suspicion of a mental illness which mitigates the punishment hadd and changes it to ta’zir, due to the principle “reducing the hudūd withn suspicions”.
 Altough an assessment of kleptomania within the frame of Islamic penal code seems able to be made by disregarding the pathological side of it, a precise assessment requires its consideration. Since kleptomania is a modern disorder it is neither mentioned in classical fiqh literature nor in contemporary authoritative sources, just  few current studies discussing mental disorders’ results in Islamic penal law  like  Muhammad Naīm Yāsin’s article “Eseru’l-Amrādhi’n-Nafsiyyati va’l-Aqliyyeti alā’l-Mes’ūliyyeti’l-Cinā’îyyeti” and  Hulûd binti Abdurrahman Mühayyaza‘’s doctoral dissertion “Ahqāmü’l-Merīdi’n-Nefsî fi’l-Fıqhi’l-Islâmî” give place to the issue ,nevertheless  very limited.   In Islamic penal law the issue of “criminal responsibility” is discussed under the general title of “awāridh al-ahliyyah. Contemporary muslim scholars like ‘Ūdeh, Behnesi and Abū Zahra address the subject privately with the title “criminal responsibility”. Like their predecessors they stipulate the presence of comprehension (ability to distinguish right and wrong) and election for responsibility “taklīf”. They also accept the absence of criminal responsibility in case of mental disorders but emphasize the difference of impulse control disorders due to the presence of sanity and election. As to a kleptomaniac’s criminal responsibility and the results of his/her action, regarding its pathological side and comparing it with the conditions of theft (sarikah) a conclusion could be reached as such: In kleptomania comprehension and election are available thus the person is criminally responsible according to Islamic criminal law. The assertion of irresistance of stealing becomes unsound with the information that they refrain from action in the presence of a guard or police. It shows both the presence of comprehension and ability of resistance in a kleptomaniac, and furthermore it proofs the deterrant function of punishment. But the incapability of self control because of an alleged disorder brings suspicion to the case and the appointed severest sanction becomes ta‘zir, not hadd. Ta‘zir can be applied in  different  forms each targeting the offenders rehabilitation  or aiming the compensation of the victim’s loss. Imprisonment, physical punishments, banning from shopping, dismission could be some examples of it, surely with the psychological/psychiatric treatment accompanying each of them. An open door might be left for a total criminal irresponsibility if the diagnosis is made by a Muslim specialist and only with a conditioned treatment in a center under the control of the court. As to the victim’s compensation, the kleptomaniac gives the goods back if it is still present and no severe damage is present to it. In case of impossibility whether he/she has to buy an identical one for his/her victim or must pay the stolen item’s price back; each situation is determined according to the goods’ kind as mislī or qıyamī.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Islamic law, criminal responsibility, comprehension, sarikah, kleptomania

İslam Ceza Hukukuna Göre Kleptomanide Ceza Ehliyeti Ve Hırsızlık Fiilinin Sonuçları

Öz

İslam ceza hukukuna göre suç sayılan bir eylemi gerçekleştiren bir bireyin cezalandırılabilmesi için onda belli vasıflar aranmaktadır. Fıkıh literatüründe “ehliyet” olarak adlandırılan bu vasıflardan en önemlileri akıl ve idraktir. Suçlunun aklını ve idrakini izale eden bir hastalığın tespiti halinde ceza tamamen kalkmakta veya hafifletilmektedir. Klasik fıkıh literatüründe cezaî ehliyete etki eden bazı temel hastalıklar zikredilse de bu hastalıkların sayıları oldukça sınırlıdır. Oysa bugün modern psikoloji ve psikiyatri bilimleri karşımıza yeni hastalıkları çıkartmakta ve bu hastalıkların ceza ehliyetine tesirlerini savunmaktadır. Kişinin iradesini dumura uğratarak onu çalmaya iten bir bozukluğu ifade eden kleptomani de bunlardan biridir. XIX-XX. yy. Avrupa’sında kuşkulu bir şekilde doğmuş, mahiyeti tartışılmış sonunda kendisini kabul ettirmiştir. Peki pozitif hukukta bir savunma yolu olarak boy gösterebilen “çalma hastalığının”, bu suça had gibi ağır bir cezayı veya -suçun sübutunda şüphe bulunması halinde- taziri ön gören İslam ceza hukukundaki karşılığı nedir? Bu soruya ilk olarak kleptomaninin aklî dengesi yerinde bir kişi tarafından işlenen bir hırsızlık eylemi olduğundan yola çıkılarak cevap verilebilir. Klasik literatürde belirlenen serika ve ihtilâs şartları çerçevesinde bir kıyas yapmak ve cezaî karşılığını saptamak mümkündür. Ancak kleptomaninin “hastalık” yönü göz ardı edilerek tatmin edici bir cevaba ulaşmak zor gözükmektedir. Kleptomaninin yeni keşfedilmiş bir hastalık türü olması nedeniyle konunun takibi, İslam ceza hukuku ve pozitif hukuk arasında karşılaştırmalı çalışmalar yapan son dönem eserlerde yapılmaya çalışılmış; kleptomani ve benzeri idraki zedeleyen hastalıklara dair hükümler araştırılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İslam Ceza Hukuku, Ehliyet, İdrak, Serika, Kleptomani

Kaynakça

• Abelson, Elaine S. “The Invention of Kleptomania.” Chicago Jurnals 15/I (1989): 123-143.
• Akpınar, Abdullah, Korucu, Cafer Çağrı, Tanrıtanır, Bilal. “Kleptomanide Olağan Sosyal İşlevsellikte Bozulma: Bir Olgu Sunumu.” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 5/2 (2014): 66-67.
• Behnesî, Ahmed Fethi. el-Mes’ûliyyeti’l-cinâiyye fî fıkhı’l-islâmî (Kahire: Darü’ş-Şürûk, 1988), 218.