Comparative Study of Duress in Certain Religious Penalties in Imami Jurisprudence and Islamic Penal Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to freedom of will, people are responsible for what they do and due to this principle, they would be punished. However, whenever human's will is distorted for some reason, punishment would be null and void. One of these reasons that can distort individual will is the principle of duress that is discussed in Imami Jurisprudence and Islamic Penal Code several times. Hence, almost in all crimes that their penalties are codified in Islamic Penal Code, duress can cause disclaimer of the coercer; unless about duress in murder. Although there are many disputes among jurists on retaliation or lack of retaliation for this crime, opinion of majority of jurists on acceptance of retaliation is accepted by the legislator. About other crimes like duress in adultery and sodomy, the coercer would be disclaimed; unless in cases that the criminal claims for coercion. In this case, legislator accepts principle of lack of duress and makes the court responsible for investigations. However, in Imami jurisprudence, the sentence would be issued for disclaimer of the coercer immediately after creation of doubt for judge and in case of probability of accuracy of claim.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".