بيان موجزي از دلايل ضرورت تعيين سن رشد

The Necessity of Fixing the Age of Prudence

در اصلاح قانون مدني 1361 توسط كميسيون قضايي و حقوقي مجلس ماده 1209 قانوني مدني حذف و ماده 1210 آن اصلاح شد و مجلس اين حذف و اصلاح را در سال 1370 تاييد كرد و در نتيجه 18 سالگي به عنوان اماره رشد حذف شد. تعارضي كه بين صدر ماده 1210 اصلاحي و تبصره 2 آن وجود داشت و سبب تهافت آرا در رويه قضايي مي شد، با صدور راي وحدت رويه شماره 30 هيات عمومي ديوان عالي كشور در سال 1364 برطرف شد، اما مشكل فقدانسن معيني به عنوان اماره رشد حل نشد. اين مقاله خلا قانوني در خصوص فقدانسن معين، به عنوان اماره رشد را نقد مي كند و به چند دليل شامل اختلاف در رويه قضايي، تعارض در مقررات قانوني، زيانبار بودن نبود اماره رشد، تصريح به سن رشد در بعضي منابع اسلامي و دلايل علمي، نتيجه مي گيرد كه تعيين سني و ترجيحاً 18 سالگي به عنوان اماره رشد، ضروري است و علت اينكه نظام حقوقي ما و مردم از زمان حذف سن رشد يعني سال 1361 دچار مشكل جدي در اين خصوص نشده اند، اين است كه ادارات و محاكم براساس قوانين منسوخ عمل مي كنند.

During amending the Civil Code in 1361 by the Judicial and Legal Committee of Parliament, the article 1209 was repealed and article 1210 was amended. This repeal and amendment was ratified by Parliament in 1370. As a result, the age of 18, as evidence of prudence, was abrogated. The contradiction between the main part of amended article 1210 and its note 2 that created conflict in the delivery of judgments by the courts, was resolved by Judgment no. 30 of the Plenary Assembly of the Supreme Court in 1364; but the absence of a certain age as evidence of prudence was not remedied. This paper criticizes the legal lacuna relating to the age of prudence, and by referring to a number of reasons including the delivery of conflicting judgments by the courts, the existence of conflict in statutory provisions, harmfulness of the absence of the presumptive of prudence, specifying the age of prudence in some Islamic sources as well as scientific reasons, concludes that age determination, preferably age 18, is essential as the presumptive of prudence. So, the reason that the legal system as well as people has not faced a serious problem since the abrogation of the age of prudence in 1361, is that governmental departments and the courts still enforce the abrogated laws in this respect.