Versita

The Mitigating Excuses for Punishment in The Iraqi Traffic Law No. 8 of The Year 2019 (A Comparative Study)

Ammar Ghali Abdulkadhim
Keywords: Comparative Study, Mitigating Excuses, Punishment ,

Abstract

In this research, we will rely on two scientific research methodologies, the first of
which is: the analytical approach in order to review the penal texts and opinions related to
the research topic, analyze and recommend one of them, in addition to the comparative
approach, as we compare the position of the Iraqi legislator with the positions of other
legislations, and we will rely in the comparison on traffic laws in both Egypt and France. The
significance of our research lies in the fact that the legal provisions for legal excuses in the
traffic law are among the important topics that have not received sufficient research despite
the large number of criminal cases in traffic crimes that results in the large number of
detainees and convicts, which burdens the state in terms of caring for those arrested and
convicts. The Iraqi legislator has identified the mitigating legal excuses in a separate
provision to achieve deterrence considerations. In Paragraph (2) of Article (37) of the Traffic
Law, it stipulates three cases for applying the mitigating excuse for the crimes of
manslaughter and wrongful personal injury arising from traffic crimes. that are the initiative
of a vehicle driver involved in a run- over crime, punishable by law, to transport the injured
person immediately to the nearest hospital or health centre or informing the police
immediately after the accident if it is not possible to transfer the victim for any reason or in
case the accident occurred outside the area of pedestrian crossing. The mitigating excuse
entails a mandatory reduction of the penalty by virtue of the law, and the judge has absolute
authority in assessing and imposing the penalty within the limits of the legal provision. Some
jurists believe that the mitigating excuses do not change the crime description, while others
argue that they do, because when the legislator decides a misdemeanor penalty for a crime
that is originally punishable by a criminal penalty, this means that the law has reduced the
gravity of the crime in its new form coupled with the excuse and considered it in term of
gravity, a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. Whoever benefits from a mitigating excuse
does not benefit from the mitigation of his civil liability, and this entails his obligation to
perform all kinds of civil obligations stipulated in the Penal Code or required by this civil law,
and the civil obligations that can be judged by the penal courts. The mitigating excuse doesnot affect civil liability. Every crime that inflicts material or moral damage on others obliges
the perpetrator or the civilly liable person to compensate the injured for such damage.
Therefore, the beneficiary of the mitigating excuse must compensate for the damages
incurred by others. Hence, whoever commits a traffic crime and causes damages as a result
of his act, either to the vehicle or persons, must compensate for such damage.